





■fz <■■■> ■ 

'•el.. «. ' ! ' 

i C <- 

-.•;OCc<XL- 



J 



- 




STATES 



«SCL 






«: ex. 
I MC ' 









m 



ts«C 



t 






5 CT 






C , 4 

C <? .'■- ( ' ;: 
C'j 

. c <c - ■ 

g£ < < 



$5k- <fc 

x; - m: 

! 

cir 









<r 









S3 

C - 



€ XLTc 

-r ■<: 



O 

< .■"<- 

- t 









! 



c «rc-«ec: : 

■ 



CO • 

: •-: 



< . 

c 

'Cv. 

c c .; 
- -c 
C '■' 

It 



C 

c 






c: <c 



«?■■■ «^ 

i 
. c - « 









C<k 






c 


c£ 








c<f 








®6 






■ 


."•■ 








<0 


■i_ 








~ 


." 




' ' 


" 




■ 




s 














< c 


= 


c 




^ _ 


= 


c 


■•' 




-- - 


c 








<- 

! 



X 



AN 



ARGUMENT 

BETWEEN AN 

ANABAPTIST and a METHODIST, 

ON THE SUBJECT AND MODE OP 

BAPTISM. 



TO WHICH IS PREFIXED 

A LETTER TO THE PUBLISHER 



Acts ii. 29. For the promise is unto totj and to your children. 

2 Thess. ii. 15. Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the Traditions 
which ye have been taught, whether by Wohd or our Epistle. 

Isaiah lxv. 23 For they are the seed of the blessed of the Lord, and their 
offspring with them. 

Jer. xxx. 20. Their children shall be as aforetime. 



PUBLISHED BY A MEMBER OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND 



WITH AN APPENDIX, CONTAINING SEVERAL 

INTERESTING ash WEIGHTY EXTRACTS. 



■aBOHESBE&Mki 



FREDERICKSBURG : 
Re-printed bx Green and Cadx.— 1814. 



TO THE 

Sfccerend Mr. Devereux Jarratt, Hector of Bath Tarfsh 
in tlw County of Binwiddie, Virginia* 

Dear Sir,- 

THROUGH the friendly offices of one whom we both es- 
teem affectionately, I have had the pleasure, though at this dis- 
tance, of being introduced to you. But an introduction merely, 
admitting it were even personal, attended likewise with all that 
benevolence and christian courtesy for which you are distinguish- 
ed, could not complete my wishes : I would desire to know more 
perfectly. — I could look upon myself entirely fortunate, only in en- 
joying a continued long acquaintance with the person who had 
endeared his character to me so much as you have done, by his 
first kind manifestations of himself. 

The men of our order and communion, are, at this time, thinly 
scattered in the land ; and, through a difference of opinion, it may 
be, in some matters that are in a great measure foreign too from 
our business, and by reason of sundry local circumstances, the 
few there are, enjoy but little intercourse with one another ; they 
feel themselves precluded somehow from strengthening each 
others' hands ; they, possibly, do not enough endeavour, in har- 
monious affectionate conjunction, to carry on the glorious work 
assigned them by their blessed Master.— I ardently long for an 
increase of our number ; a perfect union of our hearts ; a sympa- 
thy divine to operate continually within us, as the band of an in- 
dissolvable, most sacred fellowship. 

The obliging letter you were pleased to write me, not long 
since, came seasonably to hand ; and brought with it no small 
share of consolation : it breathes not only the tenderness of pri- 
vate friendship, but a general liberality of soul and sentiment, an 
expansive glow of entire good-will towards all mankind ; the 
heart-felt wish, that our Redeemer's gospel in its life and energy, 
may every where be published and received, producing meraTS 
bright and pure, Jike the Heaven its doctrines point to-, 



C »v ) 

I do not know indeed what can alleviate our present tribula- 
tions, except the symptoms here and there appearing among the 
people, of life not quite departed ; — of penitence reviving ; — of 
reformation and spirituality taking place, in some degree — the 
promise, I would hope, of their spreading deep and far ; the ear- 
nest also of a full preparation for that prosperity which, we, trust, 
the Lord will send us, after the tedious " years wherein we have 
ft suffered adversity/* 

With you, therefore, I can rejoice in the healthful operations 
of grace; the rise and progress of unaffected piety, wherever 
they are found — bearing the most intimate relation to a church, 
whose purity and excellence we pre-eminently revere ; while we 
regard each faithful Fellow-Minister and member of it with af- 
fection peculiarly fervent : this shuts not out from our esteem 
and love so much as one individual, whether Minister, Teacher, 
or private person, of whatsoever sect, description, or denomina- 
tion, who follow eth Christ Jesus in sincerity. 

You have taken notice, I observe, of the introduction of Me- 
thodism into Virginia about seven or eight years ago, by some of 
Mr. Wesley' *s preachers ; and mention your early examination of 
their principles and intentions ; the result of which was, that you 
found them to be members of the Church of England, and averse 
from a dividing spirit ; that although you had, no doubt, your ob- 
jections and pre-possessions against men's preaching without or- 
dination ; yet, upon the whole, after reading and considering Mr. 
Wesley 9 s reasons for this, you acquiesced, and favoured them as 
much as you possibly could ; that ever since the good effects of 
their labours are apparent and considerable. 

My particular acquaintance with this plan and people, is of a 
more recent date. I view them, however, in the very same light 
that you do ; and take a pleasure in countenancing them. For 
this cause some, it may be, are offended. But, on what reasona- 
ble grounds ? Do not both preachers and the people in connec- 
tion with them, regularly attend the ministrations of the Church ? 
Or, is it not a standing order among them so to do ? Do they not 
adhere to the doctrines of the church, approve of, and observe its 
discipline ? Do they not look to us for the ordinances ? They do 



not consider themselves as a separate sect ; they have guarded 
against this roost cautiously. They cannot possibly fall off from 
the Church, without breaking through their essential fundamen- 
tal principles repeatedly and publickly declared. Wherefore 
then should we reject or disown them ? Why should we behave 
unfriendly towards them ? 

Lately I have been favoured with the sight of a manuscript 
pamphlet containing, in the form of a Dialogue, a disputation 
more especially concerning Infant Baptism. The preface closes 
with the signature of " A Member of the Church of England." — 
I am informed, and it gives me satisfaction, that my honoured 
brother, to whom this letter is addressed, is both the Editor and 
Author. It was very suitable to conduct the argument in this 
familiar way — in phrase and reasoning, level to common under** 
standings. The characters brought together on the occasion, arc 
aptly pitched upon ; for it seems, that in your state particularly, 
as well as in some parts ©f this, and in sundry other places, the 
Anabaptists, or, as they would rather style themselves, the Bap" 
tists, are assiduous, now in particular, to press the Methodists 
on this subject. 

Thinking that they, from principle, or many of them, perhaps 
from custom merely, hold the validity of Infant Baptism ; yet, 
very probably, have, in general, never attended to the subject, as 
a matter of controversy ; or furnished themselves with polemical 
reasons for it ; when there appears among them a solemn deep 
concern about salvation; when there is a considerable moving 
among the people ; a spiritual work having been begun, and thro' 
its efficacy conveyed peace to many souls, and an earnest striving 
after purity in the complete will of God ; then cometh one or ano- 
ther of these zealous friends, in a public sacred character, at first 
seeming warmly to encourage the work, declaring, enforcing, 
the great essential truths, in which all are agreed. Having in 
this way rendered themselves acceptable in their measure as 
joint-laborers, agreeable to the divine system of grace; present- 
ly they step into their favorite grounds — open their distinguish- 
ing tenets — and, with other things, suggest, especially to the 
Weak and doubting, the insufficiency of" baby sprinkling ;" and 



( vi ) 

strive to persuade them, that their peace can in no sort be sound^ 
nor their standing comfortable, until they go yet deefier into bafi~ 
dismal water. 

I look, with reverence upon honest zeal, by whomsoever pos* 
sessed ; but pity that which hath not thorough information for its. 
basis ; or which principally aims at proselyting to the destinations 
of a party ; or, at the best, spends itself in non-essentials. 

If, hence, controversy does at times unavoidably arise, I see 
not what can be done, but to make the best of it ; desiring in sim* 
plicity and godly sincerity, to find and hold the truth. In the 
course of such candid enquiry and endeavour, all tenderness and 
charity should be cultivated towards those who are opponents. 

The matters treated in your Dialogue are not merely such as 
Methodists alone are concerned in ; they relate, many of them, 
in particular to the whole Church, with which we are in commu- 
nion ; and the rest, in common with that Church, to almost all 
the Churches in the world. This consideration, I believe, indu* 
ced you to become the writer, and hath afforded me the pleasure 
<&f being one of your earliest readers. 

I am, with most affectionate regard, 

Dear Sir, 

Your brother in Christ, 

and faithful servant, 

A Clergyman of the Episcopal Church 

Dover, Delaware State, March 27, 178L 



{ VII } 

TO THE READETC. 

THE following Argument between an Anabaptist and a Me* 
th%dist, was occasioned by the publication of a late Dialogue be~ 
tween Mr. Traditionist and Mr. Scripturist, on the Subject and 
Mode of Baptism. I had no intention, at first, of making this 
public^ notwithstanding I was particularly made acquainted with 
the Discourse contained herein. But having shewn it to some of 
my friends, who, believing it might be of use in preserving many 
well-meaning people from error, were urgent for its being sent t» 
the press; I told them that I had several reasons against what 
they urged ; — 1. That I had no ambition of commencing arc Au- 
thor ; but rather an aversion to it. 2. I scarcely thought the Dia» 
logue referred to, deserved any reply, much less a public one. — - 
3. I found that when I was answering a piece, abounding with 
so much abuse, vaunting, quibbling and trifling, it required a very 
strict guard to maintain that temper and decency which becomes 
the Christian. 4. 1 remembered that the wise Man says, "answer 
not a fool according to his folly, lest thou be like him." — Prov. 26, 4, 
By which words I understood, that it is often best to answer things 
§fa trifling nature, by silence and contempt. And this, at first, 1 
thought the best way to answer that Dialogue. But here again X 
was put to a stand by the 5th verse of the same chapter, which says 
w answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own, 
vonceit." By which I understood that there are times, when it 
becomes necessary to answer trifling arguments, lest he who makes 
use of them should conceit himself so "smart" that no man dares 
to encounter him, and his arguments so strong that they cannoS 
be answered ; and so will interpret silence as a concession of victo- 
ry ; and thus he may be confirmed in error, and others receive Hi 
impressions thereby. For this cause, it is at times necessary to 
expose the futility, and detect the fallacy of his arguments, audi 
turn them upon him in his own way ; that so his pride may be 
mortified, though he should still obstinately persist in his opinion. 

To avoid mistakes, I beg the reader to observe, that I don*M 
mean to insinuate that the real Authors of that Dialogue, for ra- 
fixer the Authors of the m&lermts of which it h tsmfiosed ) wetQ 



( VIII ) 

men who wanted eense. Far from it: Dr. Gill, Abel Morgan, 
Philip Cary, &c. did not want sense. But still their arguments 
on Baptism are exceeding trifling ; and the reason is, because they 
have no foundation in truths reason or scripture . And hence it is 
that you find them tur?iing and twisti?/g every way. Sometimes 
you will see them running back as far as Melchisedec, JVoah, Ar- 
phaxad, Lot, &c. and the next time you have sight of them, they 
are dragging in poor Uzsah and the cart ; and other things of 
the same colour, which have no more to do in disproving the Bap- 
tism of Infants than the transmigration of Souls. For this reason 
they are also obliged to raise a dust before them wherever they go ; 
and mingle abundance of raillery and abusive epithets with the 
rest, in order to supply the place of argument. 

But to return : — I have mentioned four objections I had against 
publication ; which were answered to my satisfaction ; and there- 
fore I agreed to send the Argument out into the world, without 
any apology for its want of a better dress. They, for whose bene- 
fit it is intended, will not find fault because it savours not of polite 
literature. It may appear indeed to the more judicious , that some 
things are grovelling ; but then they will consider, that I could 
not well rake in the dirt without stooping low. 

Many pious and learned men have written in favour of Infant 
Baptism ; and I think have fully proved the point from scripture, 
reason and antiquity. Baxter, Flavel, Wall, Bostwic and others, 
have done this. But the arguments of many of these authors, 
Baxter, Flavel, &c. though very conclusive, are yet too long and 
too deep for many capacities. Something shorter, plainer, and 
more level with common understanding, seems to be still wanting. 
Besides, no author that I know of, has so far condescended as to an~ 
swer the Anabaptists in their own way, which I think is necessary. 
For, you will observe, that notwithstanding all their vaunting and 
boasting of being able to bring such a vast number of scriptures 
into the field of controversy, sufficient to drive all before them; 
yet when they come to dispute the point, they keep themselves 
within their trenches, stand only upon the defensive, and endea* 
vour to keep out of the way of our strokes, or raise a dus* that 
they ?nay not be sec?i. 



( ix ) 

My firincifial business has therefore been to drag them out of 
their subterfuges ; to oblige them to rally their forces, that we 
might see their strength, and the numbers they talk of When I ef- 
fected this, I stood a little while on the defensive, till the enemy had 
brought ufi all his forces to the charge. By this manoeuvre the 
weakness of our enemies was soon discovered ; and fighting them 
with their own weapons, they were so galled that they were glad 
to get off in the best manner they could. 

Should any ftretend to say, I have not answered all the argu~ 
ments in the Dialogue, because I have not mentioned every ward in 
it, nor rehearsed every particular ; to such I would say, if any 
man can shew me one argument in that Dialogue against Infant 
Baptism that I have not answered, let him point it outj and an* 
swered it shall be. But I am satisfied I have taken in the whole 
substance of every objection, which is worthy the least notice. And 
moreover, because I am made particularly acquainted with the way 
and manner of the Anabaptists ; and the many methods they take 
in their private conversation and publick preaching, to lead the 
weak and unwary astray, I have also taken notice of some of these 
over and above what is in the Dialogue. 

The accurate reader will see the reason why I move so often 
from place to place, backward and forward. I have to do with a 
shifting adversary, and I am obliged to follow him or else lose 
sight of him. Every one acquainted with the way of reasoning 
adopted by the Baptists, will see that I could not answer them in 
their own way, agreeably to my design, without condescending to 
this method. 

Hoping the discerning and impartial reader will see how vain the 
boasting of our antagonists is, hoi unscriptural all their pre tend t d 
arguments are, and what a manifest design of deceiving the igno- 
rant, runs through the whole Dialogue ; I conclude by subscribing 
myself 

A Member of the Church of England* 



( * ) 



AN ABGUMENT, $e. 

Anabaptist. ~W ELL ' 0ld ^"^ howdo y° udo? la » 
v " glad to see you. I hear you have got 

an experience of grace since I saw you. 

Methodist I trust you hear nothing hut the truth : I have 
reason to helieve God has dealt bountifully with me, and 
has pardoned my sins. 

Jlna. It is a great mercy ! I should be glad to hear your 
experience. 

Metho. I am not ashamed to tell the whole world, what 
God hath done for my soul. However, it might be too te- 
dious, at present, to descend to particulars ; let it suffice to 
say, that being awakened to a sense of my danger, I received 
the spirit of bondage to fear $ and crying to the Lord, he 
gave me the spirit of adoption : I found rest to my soul ; the 
love of God was shed abroad in my heart, and the light of 
his reconciled countenance was lifted up upon me. 

Ana. I love you sincerely : I could freely give you th# 
right hand of fellowship. But one thing now and all is well ; 
and when that one thing is done, you will be much happier 
than you now are. 

Metho. I am much happier already than ever I expected, 
or thought it possible to be in this world. But I know I 
have not only one, but many things to do yet. I must fight 
the good fight of faith ; watch and pray, to keep myself in 
the love of God ; and grow daily in grace and holiness : I 
must go on to perfection, and not rest in what is already 
done. And, I believe, when I love God with all my heart, 
and am sanctified wholly, I shall be much happier than I 
am at present. 

Ana. How that may be, I can't tell. I know my hca*t 



( 2 ) 

is very unclean; it is deceitful, and desperately wicked* 
above all things ; and I expect it will remain so while I live. 

Metho. Then, I am sure, you cannot go to heaven, when 
you (lie ; for no unclean thing can enter there. Like must 
go to like ; only the pure in heart shall see God. 

•Ana. For my part, I am a poor sinner : I commit sin 
every moment : but my comfort is, I know I can't fall from 
grace. 

Metho. I doubt you are fallen from grace already. For 
the scripture says, «« the soul that sinneth shall die, and he 
«« that is born of God doth not commit sin." 

Ana. I don't want to talk about this. That was not what 
I meant, when I said, y$u have one thing to do yet, 

Metho. What then ? 

Ana. Baptism. Have you seen no necessity of going into 
the water ? 

Metho 9 Now you have got into your own element. But 
what am I to go into the water for ? 

Ana. Does it not lay upon you as a duty to be baptized ?■ 
Are you not convinced in Baptism *l I hope you will be, if 
| on are not already, 

Metho. I make not the least doubt, but my parents, who 
professed Christianity, took care to present me to God in the 
ordinance of baptism. I was then washed with water in the 
name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, whereby I was 
made a visible member of the christian church : and what 
occasion have I to be baptized again ? Baptism can do no 
more for me than it has done already. 

Ana. I suppose you mean baby sprinkling. What good 
do you think sprinkling can do an infant ? 

Metho. I have told you one thing already, I was thereby 
made a visible member of the church : And, by virtue here- 
of, since I knew the goodness of God, I have been admitted 
to the communion of the church, by her Pastors or Minis- 
ters. But as you seemed to ask me with a sneer, what 



( s ) 

good baby- sprinkling does ? I ask in my turn, with all chris- 
tian gravity, what good your adult-dipping has done you? 

Ana, Nay, I don't say it has done me any good. 

Metho, So I thought when you told me how unclean, de~ 
veilful, and wicked your heart still is. 

Ana, Well, but it is a duty though, which must be done 
in obedience: and must we do nothing but what we are to 
get by. I find you are upon the doing scheme. 

Metho, This is not an answer to my question. However* 
it is all I could ever get from one of your persuasion, 
"Whenever we come to any point, you will fly the way. I 
frankly told you one thing my baptism did for me : And if 
your's has done any more for you than mine has done for 
me, I should be glad to hear what it is. But you know that 
your going into the water only left you where it found you $ 
saving this, you were before in communion with us, but now 
you are in communion with the Anabaptists; before, you 
were a man of peace, but now you are a man of strife and 
contention. And as to your insinuation, that we are upon 
the doing scheme ; I heg leave to assure you, that I know 
that salvation is not of works, as well as you. 

Ana, But I think it looks as if the Church of England 
made a Saviour of baptism ; and there are sufficient grounds 
to charge this uvon her members. This you will find, if 
you look into their prayer-book. 

Metho, I have a great regard for that book ; and I look 
into it very often. But this strikes wide. We were talking 
about baptism. Now, if every word in the prayer-book was 
erroneous, this would make nothing against infant, or adult 
baptism. But this is a trick of you all, to endeavour to 
raise a dust, that so you may blind the eyes, and deceive the 
hearts of the simple. But, Sir, let me tell you, that you 
have no sufficient grounds, to charge us with making a Sa*- 
viour of our baptism, from any part of the prayer-hook, 



( * ) 

Ana. One of our brethren has lately published a very en- 
tertaining piece, written dialogue-wise, on the subject and 
mode of baptism, wherein he makes out this charge very 
plain. 

Metho. That is, in your opinion, I suppose ; but, in my 
opinion, the Author, as he calls himself, of that entertain* 
ing piece, has either spoken evil of the things he does not un- 
derstand ; or wilfully misrepresented them. I have read 
that pieee over and over again. 

Ana. And don't you think it a very smart pieced How do 
you like it ? 

Metho. I don't like it at all. The Author condemns in- 
fants. 

Ana. Not he. How do you make it out ? 

Metho. Does he baptize infants ? 

Ana. No. 

Metho. Who then does he admit to baptism ? 

Ana. " He does not admit any to baptism but such, who 
in a judgment of charity, are looked upon to be in a gra- 
eious state, previous to their being baptized." Page 1. 

Metho. Then, in a like judgment of charity, it seems, he 
does not look upon infants to be in tli at gracious state, and 
therefore, in a graceless one, and exposed to wrath eternal. 
So that in the very beginning of that entertaining piece, he 
lias brought himself to this pass, either to baptize infants, 
or devote them to destruction. This is very entertaining 
Indeed ! 

Ana. I have got the pieee in my pocket, and J wish you 
would read it once more. I hope you would have a better 
opinion of it. You said the Author had misrepresented, or 
misunderstood something in the prayer-book ; 1 w ish you 
would shew me what it is. 

Metho. Look here in the 6th page, " The little one is 
taught to have such a lii«*h opinion of its baptism, as to say, 
* wherein I was made a member of Christ, a child of Goi^ 



C * ) 

and an inheritor of the kingdom of heaven/' And further* 
*« that being by nature born in sin, and children of wrath, 
they are herkby (i. e. by baptism) made the children of 
grace." 

JLna. And is it not so ? 

Metho. No; for if you will observe the part of the an- 
swer last quoted is made to this question, *'• What is the in- 
ward and spiritual grace 1" Or, in other words, what is 
baptism a sacramental sign of ? The answer is, " A death 
unto sin, a new birth unto righteousness ; for bring by na- 
ture born in sin and children of wrath, we are hereby made 
the children of grace." Now is it not evident, according to 
the most easy and grammatical construction, that the here- 
by relates not to the wafer, but to a death unto sin, and a 
new birth unto righteousness ?-~And, as to the child's being 
taught to say, " In my baptism, wherein I was made a mem- 
ber of Christ, a child of God," &c. this can be found fault 
with by none but such as will not understand it. For it is 
plain no more is intended here by <•' a member of Christ," 
than the being admitted into the visible church, which is 
called his body. The 27th article accordingly explains it, 
« being grafted into the church, and the baptismal office, a 
being grafted into the body of Christ's church. — By being 
made " a child of God, and an inheritor of the kingdom of 
Heaven," is meant no more than being formally adopted fop 
such : and the privileges pertaining to their adoption are t©» 
be retained, on condition of their dying unto sin and living 
•unto righteousness. And the child has reason to thank 
God, who has called him into this state of salvation .- for is 
it not matter of thankfulness that we are called out of the 
darkness of heathenism, and admitted to dwell in aland of 
gospel light? and within the pale of Cueist's Church ? But 
are the little ones taught to have such a high notion of their 
baptism as to suppose that they have an inadmissible title to 
tho glorified state of Heaven above, by virtue of it? If so* 



' i * ) 

why does the church teaeli thein •'< to pray unto C3od that 
they may continue in the same to their life's end ?" Why 
does she require them " to crucify the old man, and utter- 
terly abolish the whole body of sin V 9 And " continually to 
mortify all evil and corrupt affections, and daily proceed in 
all virtue and godliness of living V 9 So that in both these in- 
stances, your author is guilty of a gross misrepresentation 
<ar misunderstanding. 

Ana, What does he misrepresent besides these ? 

Metho, The office for burial. Here, says he, the church 
orders all her Ministers to declare concerning all who have 
been baptized, and norte but such, that they are surely gone 
to Heaven, though the greatest of sinners, murderers, 
drunkards, &c* This is not truth. For only observe the 
rub rick before the order for burial, and you will see that 
this order is for none who are excommunicated, &c. And 
Snow let us turn to the office for the communion, and Ave 
shall see that none who live ungodly, or in any outward sin, 
are by order of the church to be admitted in anywise to the 
Lord's Table, and consequently are to be excommunicated. 
From hence it is plain, ttiat the church never ordered this 
to be read over any wicked man at all, much less does sh© 
require her Ministers to declare that drunkards, thieves, 
Whoremongers and murderers are surely gone to Heaven, 
because of baptism. 

Ana, That I did not particularly consider before, Pag* 
t?. But it is plain your church calls baptism regeneration : 
** Seeing now, dearly beloved, that this child is regenerate." 

Metho, She does so, and she has the authority of scrip- 
ture for so doing. See John iii. 5. " Except a man be born 
of water and of the spirit," &c. Born of water here is bap- 
tism or the outward and visible sign ; born of the spirit is 

* It is to be observed that I do not always quote an author word for word, 
but just give his plain meaning, a* 6hort as possible, in order to save psfer 
$er s ink and tiia** 



( * ) 

the inward and spiritual grace. Again, Titus iii. 8. " We 
are saved by the washing of regeneration and the renewing 
of the Holy Ghost." The washing of regeneration must 
allude to the water of baptism, the outward and visible 
sign ; the renewing of the Holy Ghost, the inward and spiri- 
tual grace. The propriety of calling baptism regeneration 
appears also from this — it is a xevy natural, easy and com- 
mon figure in speech to call the sign by the name of the 
thing signified. Thus, bread and wine, in the Lokd's 
Supper, are called the body and blood of Christ; not that 
they are so in reality, but as being sacramental signs of 
them. So, by the same figure, is baptism called regenera- 
tion, because this outward washing is a sacramental sign of 
it. 

•Ana, If this is all she means, it may be well enough % 
But I think this is not all. For Mr. Episcopus Clericus 
plainly informs us what he intends, when he immediately 
adds, " We yield thee hearty thanks, most merciful Father, 
that it hath pleased thee to regenerate this infant with thy 
holy spirit." Page 6. 

Metho, My dear Sir, I thought you knew that the whole 
eeeonomy of the church, whether external or internal, is 
under the government, direction, and guidance of the holy 
spirit, for it is the spirit that leads into truth and duty ; so 
that whatever is done by his direction or according to the 
mind of the spirit, is done by the spirit. The rest is easy: 
for how often do we hear a gentleman say, " I have plough- 
ed my ground, I have laid by my corn f 9 when it is evident 
he means no more than his servants had done this by hh di* 
rection. Upon the whole, is it not plain to every man, that 
your author's own design in all he has advanced respecting 
the church, is to deceive the ignorant, and prejudice the 
minds ofthe populace against the church, so that they n uy 
dissent from her, and thus fall into the snare j^e iiaa laid 
for th^m ? 

C 



( 8 ) 

Ana. Well, let us drop the prayer-book, and go to some- 
thing else : For, as you observed, let that book be right or 
wrong, it makes nothing either for or against your opinion. 

Metho. But hold ! Before we drop it, give me leave to 
ask, what you think of your author's inference from his 
own false and injurious misrepresentations of that book. 

Ana. What inference ? 

Metho. That in the 7th page — That every Minister who 
declares his unfeigned assent and consent to all things con- 
tained in the service book must stretch his conscience, or in 
plain English, be forsworn. Does your author think that 
illiberal abuse and uncharitable censures will make in fa- 
vour of his cause? Every thinking man will rather judge 
that it betrays the weakness of a cause, when abuse and 
slander are from necessity substituted in the place of argu- 
ment. Your author signifies to us, in the 28th page, that 
the design of his coming among us is to reform a certain 
corruption, &c. A goodly reformer indeed ! — Does he 
think that reformation is to be effected by a slanderous 
tongue, or a pen dipped in gall ? Or does he think the rea- 
diest way to reform men is to fall upon them with abuse ? 
He must bring better proof than this, that ever he was sent 
at all 9 or, I trust, his pretensions to the office of general 
Meformcr, will be but little regarded. 

Ana. Well, well, don't say any thing about that ? 

Metho. It is no wonder you are for hushing up and pass- 
ing over slightly the most notorious offences, seeing it is 
one of your tenets, that crimes of the deepest die will never 
be imputed to you to your ftnal condemnation. You may 
fall foully, you say, but not finally. What lengths of sin 
may not men be encourage] to go, by such a licentious 
principle as this ? 

Ana. You are getting off the subject now. I want t» 
know whether you have any proof for Infant baptism. 

Metho, A great; deal more than you have against it 



( • ) 

Ana. I suppose you bring your proof from tradition. 

Metho. Tradition is twofold, oral and written. St. Paul 
mentions both, n Tliess. ii. 15. Therefore stand fast, says 
he 9 and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whe- 
ther by word or our epistle. Now as we are to stand fast 
and hold traditions, then it follows, that if infant baptism 
was only handed down to us by tradition, we must hold it 
fast till it can be made appear that it is an evil in itself, or 
forbidden by the word of God. But may not a thing be ac- 
tually proved by tradition ? And if it can be actually proved, 
can you desire any other proof? 

Ana. We are scripturists — we will have nothing to do 
with tradition. There can be no proof from that. 

Metho. How came your author to know, and so positive- 
ly to affirm, that giving the Lord's Supper to infants was 
actually in practice from the 4-th to the 12th century ? Page 
8. Your author, I suppose, is not yet fifty years old, and 
therefore he could not be an eye witness of it. He cannot 
get it from scripture, nor does he give us any written tra- 
dition for it : How then does he know it was actually done, 
but by mere tradition ? For infant baptism we have the 
practice of all the primitive churches on our side, and the 
concurrent testimonies of many ancient fathers and coun- 
cils ; and some of these tell us it was delivered to them 
from the Apostles : Therefore we may with great confi- 
dence believe and declare that it was actually practised by 
the apostles, and the church in all ages from their days. 

Ana. " But, my dear Sir, had we not much better abide 
by what those more ancient Fathers Peter, Paul, James, 
John, Jude, &e. have left upon record V 9 Page 6. 

Metho. Pray, Sir, have these more ancient Fathers left 
any thing upon record against infant baptism ? I trow not. 
But you seem to be insensible that by speaking so contempt- 
ibly of the anr-ient Fathers and councils of the primitive 
church, and rejecting their authority, you do in effect, 



at the same time, reject Peter, Paul, &e. and all the 
writings of the New Testament. To the care and 
fidelity of these ancient Fathers the sacred records were 
committed : It was by tliem that the canonical books 
of the New Testament were determined and settled. 
Sundry epistles now read in the New Testament were at 
first placed among the antilegomina or doubtful pieces, 
which these ancient Fathers afterwards received into the 
sacred canon : Nor was this done till a recognition of its 
controverted books was taken by the council of Laodicea, 
330 years after our Loiid's ascension. If then, these an- 
cient Fathers were capable of determining what books were 
the composition of the apostles, certainly they were as able 
to determine what was their opinion and practice respecting 
infant baptism.^ Now, how ridiculous is it in your author, 
to reject their authority in this respect, and tell 1 us with a 
sneer, M that error is never the more to be respected for 
having a grey headT 9 How ridiculous, I say, when he is 
indebted to these very grey heads for all the knowledge he 
has of Peter, Paul, &c. and their writings. If I did not 
think the authority of those Fathers was to be depended 
upon, I must reject Peter, Paul, &c. But as 1 regard their 
authority and the soundness of their judgment, and put 
great confidence in their care and fidelity, I am bound to 
believe that there were such men as Peter, Paul, &e. and 
that the writings ascribed to them are genuine. — And now, 
Sir,_ let me assure you that Peter, Paul, &e. are the very 
luen that I abide by : and if any of these have left any thing 
upon record which condemns our practice, yea, if our prac- 
tice be not countenanced by T them, and by J±,sus Christ 



* It would be needless to shew the judgment of the ancient Fathers res- 
pecting infant baptism, as the author of the dialogue does not deny that they 
practised it. Many writers have shewn it to be the universal practice in 
all the primitive churches in every province ; and therefore I shall not take 
time to insert their names here, but would refer the reader to Cavu's live* 
«rf the Jfathers, the history of the councils,, and W aui's history* 



( *» ) 

the Anther of the christian church, as well as br these an- 
cients of (he primitive ages of the church, I will he one 
who will make way for your Reformer General to come in. 

Ana. You fly too high for nie. For my pari, I believe 
infant sprinkling; is built upon a Popish quicksand. Page 8. 

Metho. Your belief is without all foundation. lrenceus 9 
Origen ond others, who have spoken of infant baptism as 
practised by the Apostles and delivered to the Church from 
the Apostles, lived a great while before the darkness of Po- 
pery had overspread the christian world ; therefore it could 
not be built upon a Popish quicksand. 

Jlna. But our author says it was haled through the 
Church of Rome though. 

Metho. So were the scriptures, and they are not a jot the 
worse for that. But this is a trick of many disputants 
when they desire to carry a point, and have neither reason 
or scripture on their side : What must they do to help them 
out at a dead lift? Why, cry Popery, Popery, and the work 
is done. But I trust the people of our church have more 
sense than to be scared out of the truth or their duty, by a 
mere sound. 

Ana. But you must own that godfathers and godmothers 
are a relick of that mother of harlots. 

Metho. Not at all. These are of long standing. The 
Jews had sponserb at the circumcision of their infants, and 
these have never been discontinued in any age of the church : 
and we think it both wise and good, to retain them still. 
That you may be convinced that they were among the Jews, 
only read Luke i. 57, 63. On the eighth day they came to 
circumcise the child, and they called his name Zacharias — 
Who called his name so ? Not his father, for he was dumb 
•— Not his mother, for she did not approve of the name ; 
and therefore answered not so, hut he shall he called John. — 
And they made signs to his father how lie would have hies 
called ; and he called for a wilting table, and wrote, say* 



( ™ ) 

ing, his name is John. Now what were they, these who 
gave the name to the child, and marvelled all, when they 
found he was to he called John ? — Some of those cousins 
and relations of Elizabeth, no doubt, who we read came to 
visit her on this occasion, and were now sponsors for the 
child. And does not this circumstance, relative to the nam- 
ing of the child, put us in mind of what we often see at the 
baptism of children in our church ? When the minister asks 
the name of the child, how often do we see the godfathers 
and godmothers make signs to the parents how they will 
have him called ? especially if they have neglected to en- 
quire before hand. So you see how mistaken you are : and 
that you may see that godfathers and godmothers were also 
in the primitive church, and were then called sponsors or 
sureties as we call them now, I shall beg leave to read you 
a passage from Dr. Cave's primitive Christianity. When 
persons were brought to baptism, the bishop asked them, as 
you see here, « Lost thou renounce the devil and all his 
works, powers and service ? To which the party answered, 
I do renounce them. — Dost thou renounce the world, and all 
its pomps and pleasures? Answer, I do renounce them. — 
Next they made an open confession of their faith, the bishop 
asking, Dost thou believe in God. the Father .Mmighty. &c. 
in Jesus Christ his only Son. who, &c. Dost Ihou believe 
in the Holy Ghost, the hohj catholic church, and in one bap- 
tism of repentance for the remission of sins, and life ever- 
lasting ? To all which the person answered, I do believe. — 
This form of interrogation, or questioning, seems to have 
been very ancient in the church, and the Apostle is jusily 
thought to refer to it, when he styles baptism the answer of 
ngood conscience towards God, which can reasonably refer 
to nothing so well as that common custom of answering in 
baptism. — " These answers and actions in the adult, were 
done by the persons themselves ; in children by their spon- 
sors, as Tertullian calls them, their sureties or undertakers ; 



( 18 ) 

l»r that both infants and adult persons had those that under- 
took for them at their baptism, is notoriously known."—- 
Thus far Doetor Cave, See Christian Library, 31st vol. 
212th page.— -See then how widely you are mistaken in this 
point: And I think it must give great satisfaction to the 
members of our church to observe, as here, such a strict 
agreement between us and the ancient christians, not only 
in the subjects, but in the very rites and form of baptism. 
And however light some may pretend to make of such au- 
thority or agreement as this, yet, I believe, there is hardly 
a man endued with reason and tolerable sense, who would 
not be glad to find that his practice is countenanced by the 
primitive church, and to have such venerable antiquity on 
his side. 

Ana, Well, I would not stand for a child for all the 
world. I should think I committed a very great sin in it, 
•* to promise things which the event manifests to be false.'* 

Metho. Commit a very great sm / And what of that ? Sim 
cannot hurt you, A grievous fall would only make you 
more humble, and your brethren would like you the better 
for it. If I mistake not, this is agreeable to your doctrine. 
But your shyness in regard to standing for children, arises 
from another of your mistakes. If godfathers, &e. abso- 
lutely promised that the child shall (as your author mis- 
quotes) renounce the devil, &e it would be very absurd in- 
deed. But you know they do not, they cannot promise any 
such thing. The word is should, of the potential or sub- 
junctive mood, which implies a contingency. 

Ana. What do they do then ? 

Metho, They only express the covenanting w r ords and 
what the duty of every christian is, what he is to believe and 
do, and what that child in particular, " when he comes to 
age himself is bound to perform." — And the sponsors duty 
is expressed in the exhortation at the close of the baptismal 
«iHce, which is briefly this, « to see that the child he taught 



- .Hi 

( (* ) 

and exiiertedl to his duty." Certainly this can he no bad 
thing* but a wise and excellent institution, and nothing in it 
hard to be performed. 

Jlna. Ah ! but many stand For children that never con- 
cern themselves about them, either to teach or exhort them* 
©r any thing else. 

Metho. I am apt to think this is too often the case. But 
what would you infer from hence? If the institution he 
good in itself, it must not be rejected because some of the 
persuasion are wicked and careless. At this way of reason* 
ing you might argue the bible out of the world, seeing ma- 
ny profess to believe it, and cry it up as the best of books, 
containing the most perfect precepts of molality, &c. and 
yi't act quite the reverse of what it enjoins. 

Jlna. Well, well, drop talking of the prayerbook. 

Metho, Just as you please. Indeed f should be glad to 
drop the subject of baptism at this time ; 1 do not like to 
dispute at all. I had much rather the conversation should 
turn upon something more to edification, and which might 
tend to warm our hearts with the love of God* and uni<e 
them in love to each other. T. is would be much better for 
us both, than thus turn aside to vain j< 'nglings* whereof 
eometh nothing better than envy, strif and contention. 

•Una. Vain j anglings ! Why should we not declare the 
whole counsel of God ? And is not baptism called the 
counsel of God ? Luke vii. 30. P. 34*. 

Metho. The pharisees and lawyers are there said to re- 
ject the counsel of Gon> because they were not baptised of 
John, and become his disciples : But I don't know that we 
are required to be John's disciples now. And is this the 
famous Baptist jn^eacher your author talks of in page 9, and 
from whom you derive your original ? J so. then you ought 
to decrease, and not to increase. For John said I must de- 
crease : And indeed, John had humility enough to say, fa- 
mous as he was. that he that is least in tue kingdom of hea.- 



( If j 

ven or gospel church, is greater than he. Christians the** 
arc not the disciples of John, for if so, the disciple would 
be ahove his master ; nor was John's baptism and the chris- 
tian's baptism the same. 

Ana. Certainly you are wrong, for Christ and his apos- 
tles, &c. were all baptists. Page 9. And our author proves 
it very prettily too : For, says he, « if a baptist preacher 
baptizes any number of people, they are immediately looked 
upon to be baptists. But the baptist baptized them, there- 
fore they were baptists," and so along. 

Metho. Very pretty indeed ! — But permit me to ask you 
ene question. Don't you think that your author's intention 
in that argument was to deceive the ignorant ? Certainly it 
was. 

Ana. I think it very smart reasoning. 

Metho. 'Reasoning ! It is palpable sophistry to every dis- 
cerning eye ; and it is a sophism of that kind, if I mistake 
not, which the learned call ignoratio elenchi, or, a mistake ' 
of the question. Every man that baptizes, may so far be 
called a baptist, that is, a baptiser. But the question in de- 
bate is not whether the apostles and primitive christians 
were baptized, or whether they did baptize. This we all 
allow. But the question is, whether they were for or 
against the baptism of infants : Consequently that pwtty 
argument of his does not touch the question at all. By 
chopping logic, after the manner of your author, I could as 
well prove that a man is a goose, an ass, or any creature 
you please. 

Ana. How could you do that ? 

Metho. Thus — ey&ry goose is an animal — so is every man 
an animal — therefore every man is a goose. This is just 
as good logic as that of your author. The question is equal- 
ly mistakes; in both. I have given a more serious answer 
to this reasoning than was due to it— to mention it is sumel* 
«5nt to confute it. — But I can prove from your author's own 



( 16 ) 

words that John's and the christian's baptism is not one and 
*he same. 

Ana. How does this appear from our author's words ? 

Metho. Very clear : In the 5th page he says, «• I don't 
hold with rebaptizing at all ; if any one has a valid baptism 
according to the scriptures, I am not for baptism being re- 
peated on such." 

Ana. And what of that? 

Metho. In the xixth chapter of Acts, we read of some 
who had been baptized with John's baptism ; and so, to have 
it your own way, they were baptists. But this would not 
do — therefore the apostle commanded them to be baptized 
in the name of the Lord Jesus, i. e. with the christian's 
baptism, that so they might be christians and not baptists. 
Now if John 9 s baptism was the same with the christian's, 
then here would be a repetition of baptism, contrary to 
what your author holds : He is not for repeating a valid 
baptism; John's was looked upon to be not valid, and 
therefore baptism was repeated on those certain disciples 
which the apostle found at Ephesus. See Acts xixth chap. 
1, 9, 3, 4 and 5 verses. And if you derive your original 
from John, your baptism is not valid. Have I not proved 
my assertion ? 

Ana. That I did not particularly consider before. But 
is not baptism still a counsel of God ? 

Metho. Not if it be derived from John— his baptism was 
antiquated long ago. Christ is our Lord and Master. 

Ana. You believe it is a counsel of God to baptize, don't 

you ? 

Metho. You know I do : And I believe it is the counsel 
of God to baptize, infants and adults too, if they were no! 
baptized in infancy. But the baptism you contend for and 
practise, so far from believing it to be a counsel of God, 
that (I speak in the fear of the Lord) I verily believe It in a 
edunsel ef Satan-, 



( *? ) 

Ana, Why do you tliink so ? 

Melho. Because those whom you baptize have been bap- 
tized already, in the name of the Lord Jesus, and you have 
neither precept nor example for baptizing such over again : 
And I know of no end it answers but to introduce cn\y, 
strife, contentions, bitterness, clamour and distentions. — 
And whence do these come but from the evil one ? 

Ana. You know Christ said, " I am not come to send 
peace, but a sword and division." 

Melho, Our Lord well knew that through the wicked- 
ness of men and the agency of evil spirits, feuds and conten- 
tions would be excited in consequence of the gospel ; but 
you dare not say, you believe this to be the design oi 
Christ's coining, but contrary- wise, to send peace ; and 
therefore is he called the Prince of Peace, and the Peace 
itself. He says indeed, in a certain place, It must needs le 
that offences come, but at the same time pronounces a woe 
on those by whom they come. But by what we can gather 
from the temper and spirit of the Anabaptists, we have too 
much reason to fear, if ever they get strong enough, we 
shall see a sword and feel it too. 

Jlna. " If there be any bitterness of spirit, &c. at whose 
door is it to be laid ? The Baptists have no occasion for it, 
they have scripture enough for their principles." P. Si. 

Metho, That is easier said than proved. 1 said before, 
and I will maintain it, that you have neither precept or exam- 
ple for your practise. Here I set my foot on this single 
point, and though you should turn and twist all your days. 
you can get no ground. 

Ana, I never could see any warrant for infant baptism, 
(sprinkling I call it.) I never could see the word infant 
baptism mentioned between the lids of this bible, from the 
beginning of Genesis to the end of the Revelations, 

•Metho, And neither is the word trinity to be found there, 
and yet this is no reason why we should not believe in it.—* 



( <* ) 

Neither are the words adult baptism to be found in scripture. 

Ana. But I never could see where any infants were bap- 
tized. 

Meiho. That's a pity : but your author says, none are so 
blind as they who will not see. 

•Una. I wish you would shew me where infants were ever 
baptized. 

Metho. That is not hard to do. — Look here in the xnfh 
chap, of Exodus, 600,000 Israelites went out of Egypt on 
foot, besides children who could not go on foot. And M. 
Paul tells us, in 1 Cor, x. 2. that they were all baptized un- 
to Moses, in the cloud and in the sea; and thus were they 
initiated into the religion Moses was to teach them. Now 
here you can't deny that infants were baptized, and they 
were baptized by sprinkling too, and that is more : Foy 
they must be baptized by sprinkling, unless you will suppose 
they plunged themselves or one another into the cloud, and 
that the sea overwhelmed them, as it did the Egyptians. 
But this would be absurd to suppose. 

Ana. This may he so ; but how will you prove that in- 
fants are to be baptized now ? 

Metho. The onus probandi is always to lie upon my 
shoulders ; I mean I am to prove every thing and you no- 
thing. People might reasonably think that you who set up 
yourselves for reformers, and have come to change the cus- 
toms and usages of the church in all ages, ought to have 
acted upon the offensive, and not always stand upon the de- 
fensive. 

Ana. To be sure you must prove the infant's right. 

Metho. The right of infants to the ordinance of baptism 
is so clear, that it is no hard matter to prove it to any un- 
prejudiced person : but f insist upon it, that as they are in 
possession of their right, or what almost nine-tenths of the 
church of Christ believe to be their right, it lies upon you 
to prove that their right is not good, before they can be le- 



( i» ) 

gaily turned out of possession ; otherwise yon might turfi 
me out of possession of any article of properly 1 have. 

Ana. How could that be done ? 

Metho. Suppose you should demand what right I have to 
sm h a plantation ? I might tell you fiiy lather gave it to 
me. You demand further, But how came your father to 
have possession of it ? I may he able to say, my grandfather 
gave it to m\ father. You still go on, But what right had 
your grandfather to it ? I am run out of breath, and must 
say, 1 do not know. Now you triumph over me, and say, 
this plantation may he the property of the Indians for what 
you know, and your title, at best, depends upon a mere tradi- 
tion, and if you can't prove it to have been purchased of the 
Indians, it is none of yours ; and thus 1 am cut out of my 
farm. 

Ana. Well, hut I ask you how the children of the Israel- 
ites, being baptized unto Moses, will prove that infants are 
to be baptized now ? 

Metho. I will try to draw you out of your entrenchment 
presently. Jn the mean time I will answer your question. 
My first design in shewing you those places of scripture, 
was to let you see where infants were baptized, which you 
could never see before. This design being answered, I shall 
prove from the same scripture that infants are now to be 
baptized unto Christ, as they were formerly unto Moses. 

Ana. Proceed — I am ready to hear. 

Metho. In the 3d chapter of Acts, and 22d verse, we have 
a quotation from Deut. xviii. 15 — 18. « Moses truly said 
unto the fathers, a prophet shall the Loud your God raise 
up unto you of your brethren, like unto me." This prophecy 
is here applied to Christ, of whom Moses was a type, 
Christ was to he like unto Moses. Parents and their chil- 
dren were initiated into the religion of Moses, and put 
themselves and their little ones under the government and 
direction of his laws by baptism. And if this is not to be 



( 20 ) 

the ease, wherein is Christ like unto Moses ? If Christ 
had excluded infants from baptism, would not the Jews have 
said, surely you can't be the Messiah or that prophet, for 
fjou are not like unto Moses, for he took little ones and all in- 
to covenant, and they were baptized unto him. In this 
very thing, the likeness between Moses and Christ princi- 
pally consists. Is Christ a ruler and deliverer ? So is 
Moses : Acts vii. 35. This Moses whom they refused, the 
same did God send to be a ruler and a deliverer. Moses 
delivered the people from Egyptian bondage, took them 
tinder his care and protection, gave them laws and statutes, 
and led them on to the earthly Canaan: So does Christ pro- 
tect and guide his church, and lead his people to the celes- 
ti.tl Canaan, which is also a promised rest above, of which 
t)ie earthly Canaan was a type. This argument is very 
plain, and yet it is not the only argument by many. • 

Jlna. I do not think infants have any right to baptism. 

Melho. You don't think so % Can you prove they have not? 

Jlna. Why, what does the prayer-book say is required of 
persons to be baptized ? 

Metho. We have agreed more than once to drop this book. 
I know what that book says both of adult and infant baptisnaj 
too : It says infants are in anywise to be baptized as most 
agreeable to the word of Gou. But what signifies this ? 
You don't believe that book ; if you did, the controversy 
would be at an end. 

Jlna. Well, don't the scripture say, repent and be bap- 
tized ; believe and be baptized ? Now how can infants either 
repent or believe ? You know they can't, and therefore they 
can't be admitted to baptism. 

Melho. Fie upon it ! — You have broke my head sadly at 
the first stroke : However, I am glad 1 have got you out at 
last ; I hope T shall get over the wound presently.— But, 
my friend. I find I was more seared than hurt, and now dis- 
oover that you have overshot yourself. Your argument 



( 21 ) 

proves too much, for if put into form, it would stand thus— 
All who do not repent and believe can't be admitted to bap- 
tism.— Infants have neither repented nor believed, therefore 
infants cannot be admitted to baptism. 
Ana. Ah, and it follows very clearly. 
Metho. Now hy the same argument I can prove that all 
infants shall he damned, and the devils saved. The argu- 
ment shall stand according to the same mood and figure with 
that of your's above. 

Ana. Well, let us have it. 

Metho. You know the scripture says, « he that believe* 
shall be saved, and he that believes not shall be damned. 
And again, except ye repent yt shall all peHsh. Thus stands 
the argument.— .ill that believe shall be saved : but the devils 
lelieve, (James ii. 19.) therefore the devils shall be saved. 
And with respect to infants, thus stands the argument— Jil 
who do not repent and believe, shall be damned: Infants 
neither repent nor believe, therefore all infants shall be 
damned.— -Nay, don't start ! this conclusion as clearly fol- 
lows from the premises as yours, Mr. Impartial Enquirer 
himself being judge. 

Ana. That I did not consider before. 
Metho. I hope then you will be ashamed of the absurdity 
of such an argument for the future : since to reason from 
such general premises, infants would be in ten thousand 
times worse case than the devils themselves. If you would 
read your bible, you would see that faith and repentance 
Were as much required to circumcision as to baptism. But 
this did not exclude infants, and for this good reason, be- 
cause infants have committed no sin to repent of, and so need 
ao repentance. 

Ana. O, but our author says, faith and repentance were 
sot required to circumcision. Page 20. 

Metho. You must not take all \»nv author says upon 
crust. D»J not Mraham believe before he was dream- 



( %% ) 

•afsed t And when any were proselyted to IT'C Jews religiou* 
do you think they did not believe in the God of Israel, be* 
fore they would submit to be initiated into the church of 
God, by the painful rule of circumcision ? That man must 
have lost his reason who can think otherwise. — See Exodus 
xiith chap. 48 v. But. have you any more scripture to bring 
against infant baptism ? 

Ana. Yes, I have— 

Metho. Ah, so you have, and T will not give you tie 
trouble to mention it — I will do it for you- — It is teach and 
baptize. 

Jlna. Yes, that is it. Christ said, Go teach all nations, 
baptizing them, &c. Here, you see, teach stands before 
baptizing : — Now what can you teach an infant ? 

Metho* I find you stand much upon a mere sameness and 
priority of words. But as you are a scripturist. you might 
have noticed that the order of words in scripture, is no cer- 
tain rule for the order of things. 

Jlna* No ! Why then you must read the scripture back- 
wards. 

Metho, I will give you an instance or two of what I said. 
See Mark i. chap. 4th and , r »th verses. «* J:hn did baptize 
in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance. — 
And they were all baptized of him in Jordan, confessing 
their sins." Here you see preaching repentance and confes- 
sion of sins stand after baptism ; and which do you think 
was done first ? 

•Ana. Why, I make no doubt but John preached the bap- 
tism of repentance first, and they confessed their sins first; 
both were before baptism. 

Metho. But according to the order of words, baptism was 
first ; therefore the order of words can be no rule for the 
order of things. 

Jtncu This I did not particularly consid&r before; for 



( 23 ) 

tii is is not the way in which the advocates for infant sprinfo 
tins; usually answer this text, 

Meiho. How then ? 

Jinn. Why, they tell us that Mr. Lexiconist says that the 
word teach should be rendered, disciple all nations, bapii- 
king thein, &c. But our author says this amounts to the 
9.1 ne thing, " for it would he an odd sort of a disciple that 
was made without teaching;.* 5 Page 29. 

Metho. When I read that part of the dialogue, I question- 
ed much whether your author understood the meaning of 
the word disciple. Do you know the meaning of that word? 

•Una. Ah, to he sure : It means a person already taught. 

•Metho. It is strange that you, who have been a school- 
master as well as myself, should not better understand that 
word. I thought every body knew that a disciple is one 
who is put under the care of a master to be taught, and not 
one who is already taught. Every child sent to school is a 
disciple of the master to whom he is sent : and you must 
know that children are sent to school not because they are 
already taught, hut that they may he taught. And that this 
is evidently the true meaning of the text, appears upon the 
very face of the words in Matt, xxviii. 19, 20. Go prose- 
lyte or disciple all nations, baptizing them in the name of the 
Father, Sou and Holy Ghost, teaching them to observe ail 
things which, &c. Here you see teaching is put after bap- 
tizing. By baptism we are initiated into the church, the 
school of Christ, in which we are to be tausht and trained 
up, till having finished our course of education here below? 
we are admitted into the higher forms m Heaven. 

■JLna. I can't see int© it 

Meilia. When you used to want a school, what did you 
do? 

.Ana. Whv, J went out into some neighbourhood fo see 
how many scholars I could get f by soliciting parents to send 
their children to me. 



( 2* 1 

Metho, And did you not get these scholars or diseipkif 
(the words are the same) before you taught them ? 

Jina. To be sure J did. 

Metho. No doubt of it ; and you called them your disci- 
ples the very hour they were brought into your school, or 
put under your care, though (hey did not know one letter ia 
a book. So the apostles made disciples, and then taught 
them to read the text according to the translation of Mr* 
Lexieonist, as you call him ; the words run natural and ea* 
sy, Go disciple or proselyte all nations, baptizing them. &c* 
teaching them all things. — But according to Mr. Scriptur- 
ist, there will be a vain tautology or a senseless repetition ; 
Go teach all nations, &c. teaching //iew.-*-W hat pretty sense 
is this I 

•Etna. I ean't but think this text makes against infant 
baptism. 

Metho, Against it ! Surprising ! It certainly makes inucii 
for it, if it be not an express command for it, 

Jlna, How so ? 

Metho. Why, it can't be denied (unless by those who will 
deny any thing, rather than give up a party opinion J 1 say* 
It can't be denied that it was a custom among the Jews to 
baptize the infant children of all who were made proselytes 
to their religion. This the most learned and candid among 
the Anabaptists are obliged to own. It was also a common 
phrase with them to call such infants proselytes: for in theifl 
writings we meet with such sayings as these : " If with a pro* 
selyte, his sons and his daughters be made proselytes, that 
which is done by their father redounds to their good." And 
asrain — " An Israelite that takes an heathen child and bap- 
tizes him for a proselyte, behold he is a prosety te M * Now* 
Sir, the apostles, who were brought up in the Jew's religion, 
Qould not be ignorant of this custom of baptizing infants 

*Wau in his history and' conference ©n. baptism, $uotee the- a«th#ra 
•svfee're thmo phrases are fsun<J-, 



( 25 ) 

&n<5 calling them proselytes : Therefore when our Saviour 
gave this general commission io go and proselyte all nations, 
they must of necessity understand him, that infants were 
included as well as others. This they must understand and 
do, unless their master had told them otherwise, and exclu- 
ded infants by name. — Men are to lake words in that sense 
in which they are current, at the time and place in which 
they are spoken ; but baptizing infants was then to make 
proselytes of them as well as adults; therefore the apostles, 
without all doubt, must consider these words as an express 
command for infant baptism.— I could say a thousand things 
more in favour of infant baptism, but it would be tedious, 
•specially as they have been said already by others* Let 
me persuade you to read Bostwic*8 sermon $a that subject, 
without prejudice, and I am sure you will see stronger 
arguments, and more fair and manly reasoning for infant 
baptism there than you'll find in that dialogue against it ; 
you will see no quibbling or unchristian censures, as you 
see in that dialogue. 

Ana. But I am not satisfied about the text, teach ami 
baptize yet. Certainly the apostles did teach people before 
they baptized them. 

Metho. There is no doubt but they taught some before 
they baptized them. Their commission led them out among 
the heathens, who never heard of Christ or his gospel 
before; the adults among these they must first teach some- 
thing of the true God, and of Christ, &e. before thvy 
would be willing that either they or their children should 
be initiated into the christian religion by baptism, or be 
made proselytes thereunto. 

Jlna. But it does not appear that the apostles told then* 
to baptize their children. 

Metho. Then they did not act up to their commission : 
but I think it is fully evident that they did teach them this, 
«fee how came those who were baptized themselves* so rea^ 



( m ) 

dily to have their whole families baptized ? Did they d» 
this without being taught to do it ? 

Ana. I suppose you have an eye now to Lydia, the Gaol? 
ev and Stephanns : I suppose all the members of their fami- 
lies were grown up to be men and women, and so were 
taught, repented and believed before they were baptized. 

Metho. It must be all supposition sure enough, but it is a 
very groundless one. The practice of infant baptism has 
prevailed in all ages of the church ;-— it has been universal 
in this colony ever since its first settlement by the English, 
(Quakers excepted) till within a very few years you have 
come among us, under the title of reformers of this corrup? 
lion, as you are pleased to call it. Surely you ought to 
have been better provided with arguments for such an un- 
dertaking. You have brought three scriptures, and they 
all prove just nothing at all, except against you. And see- 
ing you have no more scripture to bring, you are reduced 
to bare suppositions : but I will spoil your supposition fbr 
you ; for I can prove, upon your own principles, that the 
members of Lydia's family were not adults. 

•Una. Can you so ? Let me hear you. 

Metho. Is it not one of your principles that you must, 
have express scripture proof or nothing, and that you will 
admit of no supposition ? 

Ana. Yes. 

Metho. And don't you hold that people adult, must be 
taught before baptism ? Or do you think an adult heathen 
would be baptized before he was taught and believed ? You 
say no. 

Ana. All this we hold. 

Metho. Then, Sir, upon your own principles I can prove 
that Lydia 9 s family consisted of infants, or such as were un- 
der her control, and so were baptized by her will, and nof 
their own. 

odna* Proceed, 



( 27 ) 

Metho. In the xvith chapter of Acts and 15th verse, w& 
3save plain scripture that Lydia's family were baptized \ 
but I must not say that the members of her family were 
taught or believed ; for this, on your principles, you must 
4eny, because there is not the least shadow of scripture to 
prove that they were taught or believed. Grown persons* 
we all allow, would not be baptized without these pre-re- 
quisites: it then clearly follows that they must be infants 
and such as were baptized by Lijdias will, and not their 
own. I am sure you have no scripture to prove that they 
Wer*e either instructed, repented or believed ; so that upon 
your own principles, I have fairly proved the baptism of inv 
fants. 

Ana. Stay ! hold ! Not you. Why you know the apes- 
ties went out of Ihe city by a river side, and spake unto the 
women which resorted thither. (Acts xvi. 13.) And here 
they might be taught perhaps. 

Metho. Perhaps so, on this supposition, that all Lydia's 
family were women ; otherwise there is no room even for a 
perhaps. Do you think they were all females ? 

Ana. It is very possible. 

Metho. 1 allow then that here is proof that the apostles 
spake to women by the river side. But these could not be- 
long to Lydia's family, for the author of the dialogue 
makes out that the members of this family Avere all men 
and not women, since you and he stand so much upon words 
and literal significations. 

Ana. Dots he so ? How ? 

Metho. Observe here, in page 30th, where he goes about 
to patch up a proof that there were no infants in Lydia's 
family, he refers us to the 40th verse, « And they entered 
into the house of Lydia, and when they had seen the bre- 
thren, they comforted them and departed." Here he insi- 
nuates that all these brethren belonged to Jjydia's family, 
mid that the apostles saw no other, If so, then they must 



( 28 ) 

fee males and not females, otherwise he would have said y 
and when he had seen the sisters he comforted them, &c« 
IV e must go by scripture, and you know the scripture teach- 
es us to call women sisters and not brothers. So all your 
proof is gone again. 

Jlna. But what does the sacred writer mean by their see- 
ing the brethren and comforting them ? Our author says 
these could not be infants, " for every body knows that a 
good nurse could do more toward comforting a cross child 
than an apostle." P. 30. 

Metho. I believe your author would make a good Merry* 
Andrew, he is very witty upon us : but such low wit and 
reason seldom go together. But now to the question. You 
know there was a numerous church planted at Philippi, and 
we have reason to believe that many more were converted 
on this first visit of Faul and Silas, than what we have here 
an account of. Tire rest is easy. 

•Una. That I did not particularly consider before. 

Metho. Upon the whole, household baptism is as plain in 
scripture as any truth whatever. This is what our ehurek 
ministers practise; and therefore they are right and you are 
wrong ; — and so you stand in need of reformation in this re- 
spect* and not they. — For your ministers do not baptize 
households together, as the apostles did, and our ministers, 
after their example, still continue to do. And now where 
is all the scripture you talk of to prove your principles 7 

Ana. Why, have we no scripture for our practice ? 

Metho. No, not one single text. Your practice has nei- 
ther precept nor example to support it. 

Ana. Why. is it not plain the apostles did baptize adults? 

Metho. And so do our ministers too ; they baptize such 
adults as never were baptized before, or in infancy. But it 
is very strange that any man should be so blind as not to 
see that there is a wide difference between the present time 
and the turn of tho apostles and first planters of Christianity 



( 29 ) 

la the world. The apostles went out info heathen nation^ 
ivith an intent to proselyte those who had no gospel or chris- 
tian baptism before; nor had they, as we know of, ever 
heard of Christianity before. In this case, the apostles first 
work Avas to open their commission, to convince them of (he 
Deing and attributes of the Lobd and his Chuist, and to 
persuade them to believe the truths they delivered to them* 
Now, people in this state, mast of necessity be taught such 
things as these, and believe them too, before they would b$ 
baptized into the profession of them. They had no fathers 
who believed the gospel, to baptize them in their infancy as 
we have : But is this the case now ? No. Many nations ar© 
now baptized into Jkstjs Christ : — Christianity has long 
been established among them, and it has been handed down 
from fathers to their sons, and parents and their children 
are already baptized into it. And now, Sir, where have you 
any command to do this over again ? Or where have you 
any example for it ? Did you ever read of any one, hern of 
ehristian parents, baptized at adult years ? Have you either 
precept or example in scripture for such a practice ? — You 
must know you have not ; and till you can shew precept and 
example for t liis 9 you shew nothing at all to the purpose ; 
and therefore every unprejudiced person must conclude that 
yours, and not ours, is a scripture-Jess practice. 

Ana. Do you suppose that the apostles baptized the in- 
fants of those who believed and were baptized themselves ? 

Metho. I do not only suppose it, but I am satisfied they 
did. Their commission includes them, and their baptizing 
whole families, just as our ministers do, shews, beyond all 
shadow of doubt, that they did so. Now in this you do not 
follow the apostles' example as we do. Did you ever know 
©ne instance of your ministers' baptizing a whole household 
at once ? I believe not. Any tolerably consistent and can- 
did interpretation of the 14th verse of the viith chapter, 1st 
epistle Cm\ will eowfirm the same truth. " The unbeliev- 



( 30 J 

iig husband is sanctified by the believing wife ; and rici 
versa — -else were your children unclean, but now ate they 
holy." It discovers the last degree of stupidity, or the most 
desperate distortion, for the purpose of defending a bad 
cause, to explain those terms by legitimate and illegitimate* 
Where is there an example in scripture, you who stickle so 
much for its literal words, where is there an example of un- 
clean signifying illegitimate birth ? Or of holy signifying a 
child born in lawful wedlock ? Is not such an explanation 
suited to tempt a smile at the embarrassment of writers 
with an obstinate text ? But the terms holy and sanetfy, in 
a multitude of passages in the old testament, imply the se- 
paration of any thing to an holy or sacred use J as the ves- 
sels of the temple, the victims for sacrifice, or the separa- 
tion of persons from the rest of mankind, to sacred privi- 
leges. So Israel was called a holy nation, because they were 
distinguished from the rest of the world, that they might 
enjoy the privileges of the church of God. The Levites 
were an holy tribe, because separated to be the priests of 
that religion. What an easy, natural interpretation of these 
words is it, in conformity to their frequent use in scripture? 
to say, — -else were your children unfit for the blessed privi- 
leges of the gospel church ; but now are they /iofy, that is 
entitled to her privileges, and particularly to the ordinance 
of baptism, separated from the rest of the world, and distin- 
guished by the enjoyment of this holy ordinance, for the 
sake of one believing parent ? 

JLna. Well, whatever you may say about Lydia's family, 
it is certain the Gaoler's all believed and were taught : » 4 for 
" the scripture says enough to shew that there were no fn- 
« fants in the Gaoler's household, for the apostles, who ne- 
<« ver used to preach to infants, spake unto him the word of 
f* the Lord, and to aU that were in his house ; and, verse 
« 34, it is said, he rejoiced, believing in God with all his 
?' htmse* Si* that h is evident that all hsiinwd, unless some 



( ** 3 

* artful person can prove that there were some in the 
« house besides the all that were in the house. 5 ' Page $0 6 

JMetho. This smells a little of the Jack-pudding again* 
There is a little wit and a little art too in that sentence, 
but your author has gone from his point. He set out with 
saying, there is scripture enough to prove that there were no 
infants in the Gaoler's household ; and concludes with put- 
ting it upon some artful person to prove there were not : but 
it does not require much art to shew that the scripture he 
brings is very far from being sufficient to prove what lie 
brings it for.— *»For, suppose I should say that the Rev. Mr* 
Jl. preached a sermon at Mr. B's, or spake the word of the 
Lord to all that were in Mr. B's house ; would this be 
enough to prove that there was not one soul at Mr. B\s be- 
sides his own family, or that Mr. B. had not a child in his 
house, or that Mr. B's wife, like Sarah and Elizabeth, was 
a barren woman ? Do you call this reasoning ? It is really 
trifling. To mention it is enough to confute it. 

Ana. But you don't take notice of what is said in 34tli 
verse. He rejoiced, believing in God with all his house. 

Metho. This does not prove that there was not a child 
there. For suppose it was said of the Rev. Mr. JL's congre- 
gation at Mr. B's, that the sermon had a great effect upon 
all — that they all rejoiced in the Lord, and that the preach- 
er rejoiced with them : Is it not easy enough to understand 
this expression, without undertaking to prove from it that 
there was not one infant there ? Or that there was not one 
woman there who had brought a child to be baptized that 
day ? — It is said in the 33d, that the Gaoler was baptized, 
he and all his ; which I think strongly implies that his fa- 
mily or the greatest part of them were baptized by the 
Gaoler's will and desire ; And this is agreeable to Exodus, 
xiith chap, and 48th verse, where it is said of one proselyted 
td the Jews religion, Lei all his males be circumcised ; and 



F 



( »* ) 

besides it is not said tliat the Gaoler's house rejoiced ancl 
believed, but only that lie rejoice , believing, &e. 

Ana, Bat, " the household of Stephanas were the first 
fruits of Achaia 9 and they addicted themselves to the minis- 
try of the saints. And could cradle bed infants addict them- 
selves to the ministry of the saints 1" Page 31. 

Metho. This argument is of a colour with the rest, and 
proves nothing at. all of what the author of the dialogue 
would have it prove. For suppose it is said of any family 
in our church (where all infants are baptized) that it is an 
exceeding happy family ; that all join together in the wor- 
ship of God ; that they are all addicted to good works, and 
are kind to the preachers of the gospel : Would it not be 
thought exceeding trifling, if some captious person should 
say, " Why, Sir, you are wrong, there are several infants 
in the family, and can cradle- bed infants do so and so ? 

Ana, Well, but " if household's must needs be taken as 
4i comprising infants, then that phrase salute the household 
66 of Onesiphorus, must be taken so too; and what absurdi- 
** ty were it to tell cradle-bed infants that Paul the prison- 
** er remembered his respects to them ?" Ibid, 

Metho, If it be an- absurdity to remember our respects to a 
gentleman & his family, the wisest men are guilty of it ; fof 
how often do they say, " Please to give my compliments to 
such a family ? Or, please to give my respects to Mr. JW 
&nd his family ?"— Indeed, Sir, such arguments as these 
are* so trifling, that I am almost ashamed to follow your 
author through them. You must see that his intention in 
all this* is to blind and deceive the ignorant, and to beguiU 
unstable souls, 

Ana, But I don't think there is any command for infant 
baptism ; and if so, you ought not to baptize them, for fear 
of the iud&ments of God. " Poor U%%ah lost his life its 
eonsequence of carrying the Ark upon a cart, instead e# 
aarrying it upon mens* shoulders." 3r*3ge 17* 



( 33 ) 

Metlio. TVe are not to be scared out of our duty by these 
far-fetched stories. J believe it would puzzle a philosopher 
to find out any connection between Uz>z>ah 9 $ cart and infant 
baptism : besides, we have never seen any body lose his life 
for having his child baptized. 

Jlna. " This, Sir, U a more spiritual dispensation, and 
f therefore God's judgments are of a more spiritual nature, 
*«For disobedience Gop many times sends leanness into the 
« soul." Ibid. 

Metho. If by leanness you mean the want of holiness of 
heart, and universal love to God and all mankind, &£. then 
I think the leanness appears to be on your side $ for your 
ebarity is so far from being universal, that it is bounded by 
ih& narrow limits of your own party : And by your own con- 
fession, your hearts continue very wicked and polluted ; and, 
no wonder, seeing there is so much bigotry and spirit of 
party to be found among you, and so great a part of your 
time is taken up in disputing, and so much of your sermons 
is taken up in abusing all other churches and societies be- 
sides your own. It is not strange that you are so lean, for 
the soul can't feed and thrive upon ridicule and abase, 

Ana. JVadao and Mihu though were destroyed fordoing 
what the Lord commanded them not. Page 32. 

Metho. The Anabaptists, for want of a better, have made 
great use of this text, I commanded them not. The words 
are found in Jeremiah, viith chap. '51st verse, where they 
evidently mean that the people had done what the Lord had 
forbidden. The whole verse runs thus, They hare built the 
high places of Tophet, to burn their sons and daughters in 
the fire, which I commanded them not. This was murder 
and idolatry, both of which are absolutely forbiddcn-*-But, 
Sir, can you see no difference between the Jews offering up 
their sons and daughters to devils, in the fire of Tofliet. and 
the christians offering their children to God, in the v&ter of 
latptism. ? 



( 3* > 

Jlna, But one plain text would have settled the whok* 
controversy. 

Jletho. But it is your misfortune that you have not got 
one text on your side, plain or not plain. You can't pro- 
duce one for your life $ and what vaunting is this, for you 
to pretend that you have so much scripture on your side, 
and when you are called upon for it, you have none to bring, 
at least none to the purpose, mere negatives at best. 

Una, You should not interrupt me.— I was going to say, 
one plain text would have settled the controversy 5 for if the 
apostles had said, " Brethren, our divine Master has been 
*< pleased to appoint baptism to succeed in the room of cir~ 
<« cumeision, and your infants are now to be baptized in- 
" stead of being circumcised, it would have done." P. 22. 

Metho, It is not our business to prescribe how the apos- 
tles ought to have spoken. Infants had all along from 
Abraham been taken into the church with their parents : if 
therefore it had been the mind of Cukist that they should 
no longer be taken in with their parents, but were to be left 
out under the gospel dispensation, then there would have 
been a necessity for an express mention of. But our Lokd 
is so far from intimating any such thing, that he declares of 
such is the kingdom of Heaven, or of God. But we have 
reason to think that if the apostles had spoken as you pre- 
scribe, it would not have done ; for they told the Jews that 
circumcision was abolished, but they were so attached to 
their own usages that tljey still thought it necessary. — It is 
plain that baptism and the Lord's Supper w r ere ordinances 
of the Christian church. — The Quakers deny both. — We 
are plainly commanded to sing psalms, hymns and spiritual 
songs.— The Quakers deny all. So you see that those who 
are given to dispute, will dispute at all events. 
Jlna, Well, I must be going. Farewell. 
Metho. No, no, stay a little longer. As you have drawn 
me into this dispute, I want to make you sick of it, before I 



( 35 ) 

let you £6. I hope it will do you good : for you have bees 
so full of disputes lately that all your religion seems to belly 
in this very thing. So much disputing among professors of 
religion, has wounded the cause of Christ : if I could be 
so fortunate as to drive this disputing devil from among you, 
it would be much to your advantage, and contribute towards 
your happiness. If you have got asy scripture against in- 
fant baptism, let us have it now. 

Ana. I have none but repent and be baptized, believe and 
be baptized — teach and baptize. 

Metho. So I thought. — And two of these you quote 
wrong : for there is no such scripture as believe and be bap' 
iized, nor teach and baptize. But these texts I have taken 
notice of already, and have shewn how little they make for 
your purpose. 

•Ana. But, « wherever Christ commands the baptizing 
f* believers, there is an implicit prohibition of all others not 
f* so qualified ; for every affirmative command of Christ 
f« implies a negative." Page 32. 

Metho. Before you scare us with your negatives, you 
ought to produce your affirmatives, for you have not shewn 
us where Christ's affirmative command for baptizing be- 
lievers is yet. The text I suppose your author had his eye 
upon, is that in Mark xvith chap. 16th verse. He that be- 
lieveth and is baptized shall be saved. But I appeal to eve- 
ry person in his right senses, whether that text contains 
any command at all. It only contains a condition, and that 
not a condition of baptism but of salvation. This is clear 
from the promise annexed to believing, and the threatening 
denounced against unbelief. He that believetli, &c. shall be 
saved; he that helieveth not shall be damned. And as to 
what your author says, that every affirmative command im» 
flies a negative ; this is not true, for we have a positive 
command to keep the seventh day of the week a holy sab- 
bath of rest, which, according to your author** divinity, is a 



( M ) 

ffcoajatWe command for not keeping the first day of the week f 
and vet y«>u and I do it. There is also a positive command, 
ftnrarwr thy father and mother : and if this implies a nega- 
tive, then it is a sin for us to honour rulers, magistrates, &c. 
An i as to that other scarecrow your author makes out of 
JVadab ami Ahihu'8 offering strange fire, commanded not, I 
would reply, that this is not a parallel case. The particular 
fire they were to offer was specified, hut they would not da 
as they were commanded. Now, if in baptizing our min- 
isters, instead of using water as commanded, should use 
braiidy, ru«i or tar, the observation would he something 
better ; but as the ease is, every man who is not blinded 
with prejudice, must see that the author's whole design is 
to deceive the people with false appearances. 

Ana, But if you are ■■right with regard to the subjects of 
baptism, surely you are not right in the mode. The apos- 
tles did not sprinkle, but plunge. 

MM(K That is much easier said than proved. 

tMna, O, come, we nave scripture enough for this. 

Melho. Perhaps not — Let us see what ytm have got. 

Ana. John did baptize in Jordan* Mark i. *. — John was 
baptizing in Enon, became there wan much water there, &e. 

Metho, That's nothing to me, 1 am not John's disciple 5 
and if I was, it would puzzle you to prove that John had 
them oil-over in the water. 

Ana, H«>w did Phitep baptize the Eunuch ? Theij went 
down hoik into the Wider. 

Metko, They went down out of the chariot, and they 
mi'J-Itt stand in the water, for what yon or I can tell ; bu« it 
is not said that Philip dippe I him over head and ears in the 
Water: and I a n satisfied he did not. 

Ana. Why do you think so ? 

Mciho. Because by the best accounts, the water is not six 
ics iU-rp, and therefore ii was not possible for a aiau t© 
be dipped in it. 



( sr ) 

Jna. Who says so ? 

Metho. One Mr. Saunders, who was at the very plaee | 
and also one Charles Thompson* who was I here also. 

•An-a. But we must not take any thing from man. 

Metho. But your author takes something from man, and 
affirms it was actually so. 

Ana. But ; does it not say we are buried with him in bap- 
tism ? (£ And can a man he said to be buried by having a lit- 
tle sand put upon his face V 9 Page 12. 

Metho. Your author says he is sorry any one should tak® 
a metaphorical expression as strong proof of any filing. 
Page 25. Surely buried with Christ by baptism into death, 
is not a literal but a metaphorical expression, as Well as 
that other expression in the same chapter, and which means 
the same thing, crucified with him. Therefore nothing can 
foe proved from this expression ; but if the expression was 
taken literally* it would make as much or more for sprink- 
ling or pouring, as for plunging. For, in burying, the body 
is not plunged through the substance of the earth, but (lie 
earth is sprinkled or poured upon it. So all your proof is 
gone again, and you are out at sea as far as ever. 

Ana, Why, does it appear to you that the apostles sprink- 
led those whom they baptized ? 

Metho. I am satisfied they did. It can admit of little 
dou'it hut PanUiim self was so baptised, and also the Gaoler 
and all his household, and the S000 at one time, and 5000 at 
another, converted and baptized by St. Peter at Jenisulem, 
must have been sprinkled. 

Jlna. Why so ? Our author says, 6i there is one circum- 
stance that puts it beyond a doubt that Paul was dipped, iia 
that he puts himself among others, and asserts, we are bu- 
ried with Christ in baptism." Page 15. 

Metho. The circumstance he mentions does not remove 
the doubt at all. For, i. The author misquotes the apos- 
*••* fosejrting in baptism^ instead of by hayUm into &e*ik* 



( 38 ) 

& The egression itself, as I said just now, is figurative* 
and therefore no certain proof can he drawn from it. 3* 
The meaning of the expression is doubtful, most people be- 
lieving that it means no more than to express the obligation 
which lies upon all who are baptized to die unto sin and de- 
part from iniquity, &e. So no certain conclusion can be 
drawn from doubtful premises. 4. It has not been made 
appear yet, that the others he puts himself among were 
clipped. And, 5. If it could be proved that the other** were 
dipped* it would not prove that Paul was, any more than it 
can be proved that St. James was a curser and swearer, lie- 
cause when speaking of the tongue, he puts himself among 
others and asserts, *< therewith curse we men." So that 
your author's circumstance leaves the matter as doubtful as 
ever : and as to the 3000 and 5000 mentioned before, it is 
not at all probable that they were dipped any more than St. 
Paul. Good reasons have been assigned for their being 
sprinkled* by many writers, but I will only add this.— Mr. 
Fuller tells us, " there were no water mills at Jerusalem, 
because there was no stream large enough to drive them.'* 
They had none but the gentle waters of Siloam; so that the 
nature of the place as well as the number of the baptized, 
renders it plain enough that they were sprinkled. 

.Ana. The action of baptism is to represent the death, bu- 
rial and resurrection of Christ, and how can these be rep- 
resented but by plunging ? 

Metho. It does not appear that the act of baptizing was 
intended to represent any such things; for the apostles, who 
baptized during the life of our Lonu, knew nothing of it : 
for after Jesus rose from the dead, it is said that as \^t they 
knew not the scripture, that he must rise again from the decide 
John xx. 9. 

Ana. What then do you think the ac of baptizing is in- 
tended to represent ? 

Metho. The cleansing from sin is represented by it. Wa- 



C 39 ) 

fer you know is an emblem of purity, and has in itself & 
cleansing virtue. Cleansing from sin is ooi effected by trie 
element of water, but by the pouring out of the holy spirit 
upon us, the sprinkling us with it, and also the sprinkling 
of the blood of Jesus, all which is represented by water. 
Hence we read, Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you P 
and ye shall be clean, &e. Ezekiei xxxvi, 25. So shall he 
sprinkle many nations, &e. Isa. lii, 15. This cleansing us 
from all filthiness and sin, as I said, is not the effect of the 
water, but of the holy spirit and the blood of Christ, which 
are represented by the water* And those expressions of 
sprinkling us with the spirit, pouring out the spirit upon us, 
and sprinkling us with the blood of Jesus, being figurative* 
they must allude to some likeness m nature, with which we 
are acquainted ; for all our ideas of spiritual things are ta- 
ken from some likenesses in nature, with which we are ac- 
quainted : Then it follows, that the pouring of water is an 
outward sign of pouring out of the spirit. From hence it 
may be concluded, that if there is to be a likeness between 
the sign and the thing signified, then, as sprinkling or pour* 
jug water in baptism best represents this, it is the most pro- 
per mode. We never read of being plunged into the spirit 
or into the blood of Chris r, but of these being poured or 
sprinkled upon us. The likeness between the sign and the 
thing signified would be lost by any other mode of baptism 
but that of sprinkling. 

Ana. Some of your church hoi 7 s with dipping* and Mr. 
Burkett says it was the manner in hot countries. 

Metho. Whatever they might do in some hot countries 
does not prove that our Saviour has fixed this mode. For 
my part, I should never be for any other mode but that of 
sprinkling, and for this reason, there is no command for 
dipping; and it is at least very doubtful whether ever the 
apostles practised it in any one instance :~~<hei e are the 
strongest circumstances that they illd sprinkle, and as sprint* 

G 



( 40 ) 

Sng is the most expressive of the thing signified, therefore 
1 should choose this mode and no other* 

Ana. I douht you are afraid of the cross. Brother Har* 
ris and hrother Waller both say, that " this has frightened 
Diany good christians from the blessing attending a submis* 
sio si to this ordinance.'* 

Jlletho. It is very strange that your brother Harris, who 
so often tells us in his sermons that he has been a Burgess, 
and a Colonel, a Sheriff, &c. could not write ten line9, after 
all his preferments, without contradicting himself, for he 
has advanced a glaring contradiction in terms— " Many a 
good christian, and yet frightened at the cross." A man 
cannot be a christian at all who does not take up the cross 
daily ; and if your baptism be the cross, it should be daily 
submitted to and taken up.-— But what blessing is this that 
attends this submission ? 

•5na. Why it is a duty. 

Melho. That it is my duty to be baptized a second time, 
or in other words, to be an Anabaptist, still remains to bo 
proved. The contrary has appeared hitherto, and you have 
no more scripture to bring to prove it a duty ; and there* 
fore I ask, Who hath required this at your hands $ 

•Ana. We think it is required, and we believe you have 
changed the ordinances and broken the everlasting covenant* 

ffletho. You think so ; and I suppose the Fapists think 
they ought to baptize hells and go barefoot : But your think** 
in* so is no proof.— -But what ordinances have we changed? 
The words you allude to are found in xxivth Isaiah, and 5th 
Terse, At that time it is beyond a doubt that infants were 
taken into the church of God. This we have not changed, 
for we take them in still. And what everlasting covenant 
have we broken ? The everlasting covenant here mentioned, 
was the same, I suppose? which was made and established 
with Mrahaitt* for an everlasting covenant. Gen. xvii. 7. 
in this infants aro expressly named, and required to be en- 



( 41 5 

$m?A into it. This we do still. Wow wlio is it, you or w^ 
Who have changed the ordinances, and broken the everlast- 
ing covenant ? For thai man who did not enter himself and 
his seed into covenant, by the seal of circumcision, was to 
be cut oif from among the people : He hathhrokm my cgv&> 
giant. Geo. xvii. i&. 

JLna. But we can't allow that baptism succeeds in the 
place of circumcision. 

Metho. No, no, you must take care how you give up that* 
©r indeed allow any thing that is true, though ever so plain: 
JJut Doctor Gill, the famous Anabaptist in London, in his 
JBxpositioa on the Canticles, had like to have forgot him* 
self, and let the truth fall out, before he was aware : How- 
ever truth enough dropped from him to shew that he look* 
•d upon baptism to answer the same end under the gospel* 
as cireumcision did under the law. 

Qtarto edition, page 1.35, 
JLna. I don't think it did. 

Metho, Why, it appears you think so, by your own prac- 
tice* and I can make you sensible of it. 
•Una. How ? 

Metho. Were any considered as members of the Jewisb 
church under the law, but such as were circumcised ? Was 
BOt that man cut off from the church, or from among the 
people, who did not submit to this rite J Were any admitted 
to the Passover without it ? 
Jhia. All this is right. 

Metho. Very well. Then I ask, are any considered as 
members of your church who are not baptized ? Are not all 
those cut off from among you who will not submit to that 
rite? Or are any admitted to the sacrament among you 
without it ? I need not wait for an answer, for every body 
knows that this is your opinion by your practice : and there- 
fore it appears by your own practice, that they answer the 
same end* This is enough, without going any farther. 



jSntt. B'it some of your church have written as if noli 
baptizing infants would abridge their privilege ; but what 
privileges have your sprinkled infants which ours have not, 
though they are not baptized ? We have the oracles of Gop, 
and « I hope that you will allow, Sir, that I have as good a 
right to put a bible into my child's hand, as you have into 
yonr's." Page 31. 

Metho. A Jew might have argued in the same manner, 
What good does it do to circumcise my child ? What though 
he is not circumcised, I hope that you will allow, Sir, that 
I may teach my child as well as you. 

Jna. But can you point out any bene||t infants receive by 
It, which others do not partake of? 

Metho. To this I have spoken already, and it will be time 
enough to answer that question further, when you point out 
any benefit which you receive by your adult dipping, which 
we who were baptized in infancy, do not partake of: but 
this you can't do ; nor can you shew one end it answers, but 
a very bad one, that is to make a schism in the church, the 
bodv of Chiiist. Do you expect to be saved by your bap- 
tism ? 

•Ana. No. salvation is not of works. 

Melho. I believe I could produce many witnesses to prove 
tli :it they have heard some of your preachers often declare, 
that people could not be saved without submitting to your 
baptism : and I myself have heard it said by some of you, 
that they believed every christian would sooner or later sub- 
in it to it. Now, what is this short of making a Saviour of 
water, and affirming that none but those of your own sect 
can be saved, or go to Heaven ? 

•Una. I believe ik&t all christians will submit sooner or 
Iziev to our baptism. 

Metho. This is uncharitable indeed :— "What reasonable 

man can swallow this ? Look into all ages of the church, 

especially those of which we have the dearest diseove* 



( M 5 

pv. Where have tlie most pious and useful men beon found ? 
JSot in your chureh or of your persuasion. When popery 
bad overspread so great a part of Christendom, was U.t- ra*i 
formation brought about b.v Anabaptists ? &ot at all. Ati- 
ther was the man raised up and qualified by the Lord to 
bring about this glorious event; bat after the reformation: 
was in some good measure effected, then started up the sect 
pf Anabaptists : And this sect aid a vast deal of hurt to the 
reformation, by bringing very much discredit upon it. This 
■was about 235 years ago, and no clear account of your sect 
can be traced any further back than this period. It has 
hem said by some that the Waldenses and Albigmses in Bo* 
hernia, were of your opinion, at least some of them ; but I 
have lately read the history of the Waldenses, Jllbigenses 
and Petrobrusians, and I cannot see that there was any 
such error among them, as that of denying infant baptism. 

Jlna. But our author says, page 9, the ancient WoMen- 
ses and Jllbigenses are charged by the Papists with denying 
Infant baptism* 

Metho. It is not at all improbable but the Papists were 
villainous enough to charge them with this erroneous opi- 
nion ; foe the historian who writes the account of the rise 
and sufferings, &c. of these good people, says, that « the 
Popish Monks charged them with many foul and false opi- 
nions. From which accusations they, by a publick apolo- 
gy, cleared themselves. 55 (See Clarke's General Martyro- 
logy, in Christian Library, vol. 6, and page 14.) So that 
if the Papists did charge them with denying infant baptism, 
it appears that it was only a wretched and malicious slan- 
der, and by their apology they made it evident that it was 
so, and that no such foul and false opinion was held among 
them. It is manifest, from Clark's account, that the Wal- 
denses, Jllbigenses and Petrobrtisiajis were one and the same 
people, and that they were episcopalians, as our church is : 
But with respect to the reformation just mentioned, it is 



( 4* } 

dear that Anabaptists did then make their appearance, Be* 
se Luther mentions them, and complains of the great 
hurt they did to the reformation and the christian cause, 
(Bee his commentary on the Galatians.J And now, Sir, 
what reasonable man can even suppose that you were sent 
here to reform the corruption of any established ordinance ? 
Luther was sensible that the Anabaptists hung as a dead 
weight upon the skirts of the reformation, and I believe 
many pious people believe you hang as a dead weight upoa 
the skirts of true religion at the present day ; and whatever 
you may be prompted to believe, from the too great success 
you have met with in making proselytes to your persua* 
sion, I trust my countrymen begin to see into things, in 
some good measure now, and will not so easily be beguiled* 
as too many have been already. 

Ana* Ah, now you are persecuting us : but we have al» 
ways been a persecuted people, and so have the mark of the 
people of Go®, Blessed are ye, says our Lord, that are per* 
scented for righteousness sake, 

Metho, Take care, if you are persecuted, that it be fot° 
righteousness sake, and not for unrighteousness : — but far 
be it from me to persecute any man alive. But if it is called 
persecution in ine to speak the truth in answering for my* 
self, and endeavoring to preserve people from error, what 
mast we think of those many abusive, sneering and offensive 
expressions which are to be found in your author, and in 
many of your sermons ? 

•ana. We don't persecute. What expressions do you 
mean ? 

Metho. How often do we hear your preachers (who pep- 
haps have not read their bible through since they went to 
school) declaring in such language as this ? viz. " Infant 
baptism is a scripture-less practice — a feather of Antichrist 9 s 
cap — built upon a Popish quicksand — haled through the 
chureh of Rone — a spawn of the msthvr of harfot$—th&" 



( 45 ) 

jbnirfe&neeof lazy priests, who are afraid of wetting Hid? 
feet, who rather than do their duty, will lie in bed and mil 
for a cordial :" — that is, in plain English, they are so 
drunk they can't rii^j and many other things too tedious 
to mention. All this Is we!!, as it comes from you, no per- 
secution at all : but if we say any thing against what you 
advance, in vindication of ourselves, though in the most in- 
offensive terms the truth will admit of; — O, this is persecu- 
tion, we are poor persecuted creatures, and such like, 

Ana. O, but you must own that some of the church mia* 
Jsters do get drunk* 

Metho. Supposing this to be the ease with some, jet, 
blessed be God, they are not all of this stamp ; and if they 
Were* this would make nothing against infant baptism,-— 
And how easy would it be for me to recriminate ? But I will 
never return railing for railing — I scorn it. — My cause can 
ho defended easy enough without descending to the low ar-» 
tifice of slander and abuse. — What I have said already, 
the Anabaptists in the world can never answer ; but I have 
not said the hundredth part of what might be said, and 
been said. If yoi\ or any one else should desire further' 
light into this subject, I would advise the reading of Host* 
apic's sermon on Infant Baptism* FlateVs argument with 
Cory, Baxter's dispute with Tombs, Wall's history of In* 
fant Baptism and Conference. Whoever reads these witii 
an impartial eye and unprejudiced mind, will be in no dan* 
ger of being an Anabaptist. — But I could risque the cause 
with all the world upon what I have this day advanced in 
conversation with you. 

Ana. Well, I must be going — farewell. 

Metho. I wish you well, and I beseech you for the future 
to pray more and dispute less, and be more anxious to grow 
in grace than to make proselytes to an opinion which has no 
snore scripture on the side of it. Then you will lead a 
^nd peaceable life* in ali godliness and christian love. 



( 43 ) 

APPENDIX. 



■w oo -Me- oe- 

B&traet from a Sermon on Baptism, by the Rev, Caleb & 
Tenney, of Newport, M, I. Published 1808. 

TESTIMONIES, well authenticated, give assurance, 
that Infant Baptism was universally practised by the 
church in the time of the Apostles and for several centuries 
after them. 

Although this right of infants is not to be maintained Irjr 
the evidence of history alone, yet if the testimonies of the 
fathers in the first ages of Christianity are united to sup- 
port this as an observance of the church, they will establish.) 
beyond all reasonable denial, the transmission of this right, 
from Christ and the Apostles. 

As the concession is general, that the baptism of infants 
has been practised for several of the last centuries, our pre- 
sent inquiry is into the practice of the church in the time of 
the Apostles, and of their immediate successors. 

Grateful must it be to the Christian world, that more 
than a century ago, a complete history of Infant Baptism 
was published by Dr. Wall, a learned and correct historian. 
Such were the accuracy and merits of this work, that in a 
general convention, holden Fehruarv 9th, 1705, the elenry 
of England •'• ordered, that the thanks of this house begiv- 
« en to Dr. Wall, for the learned and excellent book, he 
e ° hath lately written, concerning Infant Baptism." Also 
Mr. Whiston, a man of extensive learning, and one of the 
denomination of Baptists, declared to many of them, in a 
public address. «• That Dr. Wall's history of Infant Bap- 
's* tism, as to facts, appeared to him, most accurately done, 
** and might he depended on by the Baptists themsleves. M -~* 
From this history, a few testimonies, touching the subject 
before us. are now to he presented. 

After all his assiduous researches, our historian gives the 
result of the various testimonies, in these words : '* For the 
"jirst four hundred years" after Christ, « there appears 
65 only one man, Tertulian, who advised the delay of Infant 
« Baptism in some cases; and one Gregory, who did, per- 
(i haps, practise such delay in the case of his own children $ 
" but no society of men so thinking, or so practising ; op 
** any one ntatt saying, it was unlawful to baptize infants* 



( « ) 

« So in the next seven hundred years* there 19 not so much 
jw as one man to he found, who either spoke for, or practised 
<« any such delay, but all the contrary. And when, about 
U the year 1130, one sect among the Waldenses, or A 1 bi- 
ff geuses declared against the baptizing of infants, as being 
** incapable of salvation, the main body of that people re- 
** jected their opinion $ and they, who still held that opinion, 
« quickly dwindled away, and disappeared ; there being no 
« more persons heard of, holding that tenet, until the rising 
« of the German Antipcedobaptists," or Baptists, *« in the 
« year 1532." 

Considering the practice of Infant Baptism, through the 
long period, from the fourth to the sixteenth century, as 
universally observed, except by a few who soon dwindled 
away, and some who denied all baptism by water ; we are 
brought to a careful examination of the subject, during the 
-first four centuries. —But through this period, so complete 
was the union of all Christians in this point, that publica- 
tions directly upon this subject, either controversial, or 
historical, were needless. The accounts of the fathers are, 
of course, detached and occasional. Yet they are suffici- 
ently numerous and decisive, to carry full conviction, that 
in their day, the church uniformly gave baptism to the in- 
fants of believers. 

About 300 years after the Apostles, or 400 after the birth 
of Christ j the Pelagian Controversy* upon the subject of 
Original Sin* was commenced, continued long, and engaged 
the greatest abilities of the age. On one side, Pelagius and 
his adherents contended, that infants were born free from 
all sinful impurity. — On the other side, Austin, with his 
adherents, urged against them the design of Infant Baptism. 
«< Infants are," said Austin, «« by all Christians, acknow- 
" ledged to stand in need of baptism, which must be for ori- 
« ginal sin, since they have no other. If they have no sin, 
i( why are they then baptized, according to the rules of the 
6i church, for the forgiveness of sins ? Why are they washed 
" in the laver of regeneration, if they have no pollution V 9 
By this argument, the Pelagians felt themselves pressed, 
and deeply perplexed. But had the baptism of infants not 
been practised by the church, they might, with ease, have 
asserted this, denied the right, and freed themselves from 
the whole argument, by which they were so deeply embar- 
rassed. Was this, however, the method which they adopt- 
ed ? Was this their expedient, to secure to themselves a fi* 

If 



( ** ) 

aal triumph ? — Indeed, their conduct was completely the 
reverse. When some reported, that Pelagius, by denying 
the pollution of infants, denied baptism to them also, he, in 
his own vindication, declared : « Men slander me, as if I 
" denied the sacrament of baptism to infants, and did pro- 
** mise the kingdom of heaven to any person without the 
" redemption of Christ : but I never heard of any, not even 
" the most impious heretic, that would say such a thing of 
" infants." In opposition to the success of his own argu- 
ment, and of his favourite sentiment, this man did, thus 
plainly declare, that he was slandered by those, who intima* 
ted, that he denied the baptism of infants, and that it was 
the universal practice of the church ; or that he had never 
heard of any man, no, not even the most impious heretic* 
who denied this sacrament to them. But at this period* 
was Infant Baptism, as some would intimate, generally de- 
nied ; and still, had Pelagius, who had travelled into all 
parts of the Christian world, and well knew the general state 
of all the churches, had he never heard of one, who denied 
it ?— -These circumstances, duly considered, must be viewed 
as almost absolute proof, that, at this early period, Infant 
Baptism was practised throughout the Christian church. 

About 280 years after the Apostles, Austin asserted in 
his writings, « That Infant Baptism is one of those practi- 
" ces, which was not instituted by any council, but has al- 
" ways been in use. — The whole church of Christ have con- 
« stantly held, that infants are baptized, for the forgive- 
« ness of sin." He adds, " That he had never read, or heard 
" of any Christian, catholic, or sectary, who held other' 
« wise." 

About 270 years after the Apostolic age, Hierome, Chry* 
50stom and Ambrose touched upon this subject, in their wri- 
tings. Hierome says : " If infants be not baptized, the sin 
« of omitting their baptism is laid to the parent's charge." 
Chrysostom says ; " That persons may be baptized, either 
'* in their infancy, in middle age, or in old age $ and that in- 
iS fants were baptized." Ambrose declares ; " That Infant 
5i Baptism was practised in his day, and in the days of the 
i6 Apostles." Thus, in the third century after the Apos- 
tles, these writers speak of the baptism of infants as not in-* 
f roduced in their age, but as a practice, which had been uni« 
ibrmly observed by the church. We are hence certain, 
that this practice prevailed earlier than the third century. 

The settind after the Apostles is, therefore, to be exa- 



( *9 ) 

mined. Not far from 150 years after them, Cyprian, tlie 
Bishop of Carthage, and a distinguished martyr, submitted 
to a council of 66 bishops, or ministers, this question ;— 
<* Whether an infant might be baptized before it was eight 
" days old f Upon this question the council was unani- 
mous, that infants might be baptized before they were eight 
days old. In their reply to Fidus, the Bishop by whom the 
question was first proposed, they write in the words follow- 
ing ; «< As to the case of infants, whereas you judge, that 
** none should be baptized and sanctified, until the eighth 
«*day after their birth, we were alt in our assembly of a 
« quite different opinion. For with respect to what you 
** thought fitting to be done, there wsls not one of your 
< ( mind." Testimonies like this are evidence not to be eva- 
ded, nor resisted. This council was holden so near the age 
of the Apostles, that they must have been able to learn with 
accuracy and certainty the Apostolic practice. When we 
can ascertain beyond all doubt, the religious sentiments and 
practices of our fathers, who first settled in this country ; 
when we can look back 300 years, to the days of Calvin and 
Luther, and determine their faith and practice, could not 
this council look back through a period of half the length, 
and ascertain the views and proceedings of the Apostles con-, 
cerning infants ? Is it not unquestionable, that some of the 
more aged of the sixty-six bishops, had seen and conversed 
with many, who had enjoyed personal acquaintance with the 
Apostles and their practice ? At least, this council of Car- 
thage must have certainly known, whether Infant Baptism 
was practised by the Apostles, or were an innovation after 
their day. But had it been an innovation, it could not, at 
this early period, have been established through the church 
universally ; nor could it have been established without fixed 
opposition and severe dissention. Yet, without the least 
doubts concerning the duty and with unanimous voice, they 
declare, That infants may be baptized before they are eight 
days old. Either all the members of this council, and all 
the fathers, (for with thorn, all the fathers unite,) were con- 
federated to support a known error ; or else, the practice of 
Infant Baptism descended to them from the Apostles. To 
believe, however, that they were so confederated, requires a 
stretch of unchristian severity, to whieli no man can extend 
himself. The transactions of this council, which Cyprian 
stated at length in an epistle, written by his own hand, about 
150 years after the Apostles, are, therefore, a clear and 



( s° ) 

invincible testimony to the practice of Infant Baptism m 
their age. And of history, « There is no piece," says our 
historian, " in all antiquity, that canbe proved more certain* 
£' ly to be genuine, than this." 

Although we might here rest our enquiries, in full con- 
viction, that the baptism of infants was inculcated by the 
Apostles, and uniformly practised by the primitive Christi- 
ans, yet we have other testimonies both explicit and weigh- 
ty. The evidence is clear, that Origin descended of Chris- 
tian parents ; that he was born about 85 years after the 
Apostles ;— that he was a man of extensive reading, and 
travelled into those countries, where Christianity was first 
and most generally prevalent.— This man, who was 17 years 
old when his father suffered martyrdom, must be acknow- 
ledged to have been in a capacity to ascertain fully the mind 
ofthe Apostles, and the practice of the church, concerning 
Infant Baptism. And thus saith Origin : " Infants by the 
*< usage of the church, are baptized.— Infants are baptized 
" for the remission of sin.^-The church had a tradition, or 
«« command from the Apostles to give baptism to infants ; 
« for they to whom the divine mysteries were committed 
«' knew, that there is in all persons, the natural pollution of 
66 sin, which ought to be washed away by water and the 
*• Spirit." This testimony, my brethren, is full and incon- 
trovertible. For we are constrained to believe, that by Ori- 
gin such assertions would not be sent forth to the public, un* 
less true. We are constrained to believe, that had any in 
his time denied Infant Baptism, they would not have been 
silent until they had made it appear, that the church re- 
ceived no such command from the Apostles, and observed 
no such practice. But Origin's testimony stands, without a 
word from any ofthe fathers in contradiction, and in all its 
weight, is transmitted to us, that infants were baptized in 
compliance with Apostolic command. 

A little more than 100 years from the Apostles, Turtu- 
lian, and about 150 years after him, Gregory, testified indi- 
reetiy, but fully, to the practice of Infant Baptism. These 
two men, our historian declares, as in our first quotation 
were the only persons to be found during the first four cen- 
turies, who so much as advised the delay of baptizing in- 
fants. Turtu-lian, though esteemed a man of learning and 
veracity, was extravagantly fond of peculiarities, and for he- 
resy was finally ejected from the church. He advised to 
delay the baptism of children, until they had passed the 



C « ') 

temptations of youth. Sueh delay Gregory observed re- 
specting Lis own children. But they hoth speak of Infant 
Baptism as universally practised. Even their advice for a 
delay draws the conclusion after it, infallibly, that infants 
were baptized. Otherwise, there had been no occasion for 
sueh advice. 

Thus we are assured, that Infant Baptism was not intro- 
duced in the second century from the Apostles. For all the 
fathers mention it as universally observed, not only in this 
century, but even at an earlier period.. — The evidence du- 
ring the first century, therefore, merits cur attention. =-? 
But in so early a period, the Christians, as they must have 
known fully the mind of the Apostles, had no ground for 
controversy, or for leaving their testimony upon the subject. 
Of course, any thing, which remains, undenied by all the 
fathers, and from whieh this practice can be fairly inferred, 
must be viewed as evidence, in the present case, sufficient 
and decisive. Such evidence we have. 

After the Apostles 67 years, Irenseus in his writings 
spoke upon this subject. This Irenseus was born before the 
death of St. John, lived in Asia where the Apostle resided, 
and was afterward bishop of Lyons in France. lie saw and 
conversed with some who had seen Christ; he was acquaint- 
ed with, and had attended upon the preaching of Polvearp, 
who was the disciple of St. John, and probably that angel of 
the church in Smyrna, whom the Apostle so highly ap- 
proves in the second chapter of Revelations. Being well 
acquainted with Polyearp, living so near the Apostles, 
where St. John lived and died, Irenseus could not be igno- 
rant of the apostolic practice concerning Infant Baptism, 
According to the custom of the fathers, he spake of baptism 
by the thing signified in the use of water and called it regenc 
ration. But that he intended the external baptism of in- 
fants, when he spoke of their regeneration, is certain froai 
his own explanation. In reference to some, who had been 
baptized, he says, fc *They are regenerated in the same way 
" of regeneration in whieh we have been regenerated ; for 
*? they are washed with water* in the name of the Father, 
*< and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. For Christ says, 
<« Unless ve be regenerated, you cannot enter into the kins:- 
" dom of heaven." Speaking of Christ, Irenseus says; 
" He came to save all persons ; all, I mean, who by him are 
"regenerated, for lapiized.J unto God : Injt nts and Utile 
li ones ; and children, and youths, and eider persons. 



*'< Therefore lie went through the several ages ; for infanta 
** being made an infant, that he might sanctify infants ; to 
*' little ones, he was made a little one."— -This testimony 
proves, undeniably, that the baptism of infants, as an impor- 
tant duty, was practised in the days which succeeded, im- 
mediately, to the Apostolic age. 

Justin Martyr, who was born ahout 4, and wrote about 
40 years after the Apostle John, observes in one of his Apo- 
logies for the Christians, that, « Several persons among us, 
*< of 60 or 70 years old, who were made disciples to Christ 
«? from their childhood, do continue uncorrupt. ,, These 
persons must have been made disciples in the days of the 
Apostles, and must afterward have witnessed their practice. 
From them, Justin, their acquaintance, had opportunity to 
derive full assurance concerning the Apostles' treatment of 
infants, and their views of baptism in general. With this 
advantage he declares, that baptism and circumcision are of 
the sai:ie import, and of course the former must be applied, 
as the latter formerly was, to infants. Says Justin, " We 
*< have not received the carnal, but spiritual circumcision, by 
" baptism. And it is allowed to all persons to receive it in the 
" same way." More than this, from the age and circum? 
stances in which he lived, we could not expect. The testi- 
monies then, of Irenseus and Justin, and equal evidence from 
the writings of Clemens and Hermes, contemporaries with 
Paul, and mentioned in his Epistles, have, without contra- 
diction from one of the fathers, descended to us, and are 
strong and invincible. 

The evidence is already clear and plenary, that the prac« 
tice of Infant Baptism was not introduced in the third cen- 
tury after the Apostles ; for it is repeatedly mentioned, as 
universally prevalent in the second. Nor was it introduced 
in the second century after them ; for it is mentioned by un- 
deniable and full implication, as universally prevalent in the 
first. Certainly, then, as an innovation, it was introduced 
in the first century, without a struggle, and unknown to the 
whole world ; or else, as Origin, Chrysostom, and Ambrose 
affirm, the church had a command, or tradition from the 
Apostles, to give baptism to infants. 

That such an order was given, and that the church prac- 
tised in conformity, is certain, from the expressed and gene- 
ral belief of the fathers, that baptism comes in the place of 
circumcision, and is of the same use. — As before quoted, 
Justin said, « We have not received the carnal, but spiritual 



( * ) 

e( circumcision, by baptism." «« Dost thou delay, said Basifj 
M the circumcision, made without hands, which is perform- 
« ed in baptism?" In belief, from the evidence we have al- 
ready considered, that baptism takes the place of circumci- 
sion, the fathers must have applied it to infants. This con- 
elusion, no man can doubt, Accordingly, Chrysostom saw! ; 
66 One that is in the very beginning of his age, may receive 
** this circumcision made without hands." 

In direct confirmation of the correctness of all the prece- 
ding testimonies, we have invincible proof from several his- 
torical accounts, written at an early period, and yet extant, 
of all the different religious sects and practices, which pre 
vailed in the first ages of Christianity • Irenseus wrote Ids 
account 76 years after the Apostles. Austin and Philas- 
tmis wrote about 280 years after them.- Philastruis, who 
created a distinction into sects for every little difference of 
opinion, stated the whole number of sects at 100* Theo- 
doret wrote a learned and very particular account of here- 
sies, about 380 years after the Apostles. These writers are 
full and express; some of them declare, they had named all 
the sects they had ever heard of in the world, speak parti 
cularly of those who deny all baptism by water, and ex- 
pressly state the different ways, in which water was applied 
in baptism. But in all their accounts, not the most distant 
hint is to be found, that any, who believed in any kin'd of 
baptism by water, did deny the practice of Infant Baptism- 
No sect, no, not a man is named. But had there been any, 
who had denied this, the denial of it, since it was generally 
practised in the church, would have been a peculiarity suf- 
ficient to constitute a distinct sect, and must have been men- 
tioned by these writers* But these writers, and all the men 
of antiquity, had not the least knowledge of any such sect. 
Evidence like this must carry conviction to every mind un- 
less shielded by the unchristian armour of obstinacy and 
prejudice. 

To all this may be added, as an argument of importance? 
a deduction from the silence of scripture history, and of the 
Jews of the Apostolic age. The Jews, who were exceed- 
ingly tenacious of their descent from Abraham, and of the 
relation of their children to the covenant ,• — who suffered 
none? unless circumcised, to become incorporated with 
them ;-— who were watchful and jealous of every change 
from their ancient order, and of whatever seemed unfriendly 
to their distinction and privileges \ — who, after the esta- 



( &* ) 

folishment of Christianity, opposed the admission of the Gen* 
tiles into the church without circumcision, until a council 
was convened at Jerusalem, and declared, that it seemed 
good unto the Holy Ghost, and to them, not to lay this un- 
necessary burden upon the Gentile brethren ; — the Jews* 
some of whom were implacable enemies, and urged every 
possible objection against the gospel ; the Jews, had the 
Apostles severed children from their uniform connection 
with the church and from the seal of the covenant, would 
have sounded this innovation far and near, and have viewed 
St an unanswerable objection against the gospel. But did 
they ever allege, that Christianity excluded their children 
from their former standing, or curtailed their privileges ? 
Did the Apostles ever attempt to answer this objection, to 
remove this stumbling block ? In the whole scriptures, not 
a word upon the subject is recorded. The objection was 
never urged. But it would have been pressed, had not the 
Christian dispensation preserved and secured all the privi- 
leges and blessings of children. In this instance, the silence 
of scripture utters a language, which can but be heard, and 
must secure belief* 

On the whole, have we not, my brethren, ample and deci- 
sive evidence to support the right and duty of Infant Bap- 
tism ? Must not all the objections urged against either the 
right or design of this institution, be merely apparent, cir- 
cumstantial, and really groundless ? Can we desire, could 
we have evidence more complete ? Indeed, this evidence is 
full, that you may receive and firmly hold, in all their ex- 
tent and consolation, the gracious words of the Apostle,—* 
The promise is unto you, and to youii children, and 
to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God 
shall call. 

The following is extracted from the reverend and pioue 
Bishop Beveridge's " Thoughts on Religion." 

ARTICLE X. 
I believe, that as God entered into a covenant of graze with 
us, so hath he signed his covenant to us by a double seal, 
baptism, and the Lord's supper. 
AS the covenant of works had two sacraments, viz. the 
tree of life, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil ; 
the first signifying and sealing life and happiness to the per- 
formance, the other death and misery to the breach of it* 



( i] 



go the covenant of grace was likewise sealed with two ^ typi- 
cal sacraments, circumcision and the passover. 1 he : torm- 
er was annexed at God's first making «™ «"«"* w ?£ 
Abraham's person ; the other was added, at his fulfilling the 
promises of it, to his seed or posterity, winch were, there- 
fere, stvled the promised seed. But these being only typical 
of the true and spiritual sacraments, that were afterwards 
?o take p ace «pon P the coming of the Messiah, .here was 
then, in the fullness of time, two other sacraments subst tu- 
ted in their stead, viz. baptism, and the supper of the Lord. 
And these sacraments were both correspondent to the types 
bv whieh thev were represented. . 

As to the first, viz. circumcision, whether I consider the 
time of conferring it, or the end of its institution, I fin., it 
exactly answers to the sacrament of baptism in both these 
™ts? For, as the children under the law were to be 
circumcised in their infancy, at eight days old ; so are toe 
children under the gospel to be baptized in ttor infancy 
too. And as the principal thing intended in the rite ot cir- 
cumcision, was to initiate or admit the children of thefa.lh- 
fuUnto the Jewish church ; so the chief design o baptism 
now, i. to admit the children of such as profess themselves 
christians, into the church of Christ. And. for this reason, 
I believe, that as, under the old testament, children had the 
trant of covenant privileges, and church membership, as 
really as their parents had ; so this grant was not repealed, 
as is intimatedf Acts ii. 39. but farther confirmed in the new 
testament, in that the apostle calls the children of believing 
Barents holy, 1 Cor. xii. 14. Which cannot he understood 
of a real and inherent, but only of a relative and covenanted 
holiness, by virtue of which, being born of believing parents, 
themselves are accounted in the number of believers, and 
are therefore called holy children under the gospel, in the 
game sense that the people. of Israel were called a g peo- 
ple under the law, Deut. vn. 6. and xiv. 2, 21. as being all 
within the covenant of grace, which, through the faith ot 
their uarents, is thus sealed to them in baptism. 

Not that I think it necessary, that all parents should be 
endued with what we call a saving faith, to entitle their 
children to these privileges, (for then none but the children 
of such who have the spirit of Christ truly implaned in 
them, would be qualified to partake ot the covenant but 
even such, who by an outward historical faith, have taken 
tb<^ name of Christ upon them, are, by that means, in cove- 

X 



( 5G ) 



nant with God, and so accounted holy in respect of their pro* 
fession, whatever they may be in point of practice. And if 
they are themselves holy, it follows of course, that their 
children must be so too, they being esteemed as parts of 
their parents, till made distinct members in the body of 
Christ.; or, at least, till they come to the use of their rea- 
son, and the improvement of their natural abilities. 

And, therefore, though the seal be changed, yet the co- 
venant-privileges, wherewith the parties stipulating unto 
God were before invested, are no whit altered or diminish- 
e'd ; believers' children being as really confederates with 
their parents, in the covenant of grace now, as they were 
before under the Jewish administration of it. And this 
seems to be altogether necessary ; for otherwise, infants 
should be invested with privileges under the type, and he de- 
prived of or excluded from them, under the more perfect 
accomplishment of the same covenant in the thing typified ; 
and so, the dispensations of God's grace tvould be more strait 
and narrow since, than they were before the coming of our 
Saviour, which I look upon to bk wo £j&ss than BLAS- 
PHEMY TO ASSERT, 

And, upon this ground, I believe, it is as really the duty 
of christians to baptize their children now, as ever it was 
the duty of the Israelites to circumcise theirs ; and there- 
fore, St. Peter's question, Can any man forbid water, that 
these should not he baptized, who have received the Holy 
Ghost as well as we $ Acts x. 47 may very properly be ap- 
plied to this case. Can any one forbid water, that children 
should not be baptized, who are in covenant with the most 
high God as well as we ? For what is it, 1 pray, that the 
right to baptism doth depend upon ? Surely, not upon per- 
forming the conditions of the covenant ; for then none should 
he baptized, but such as are true believers in themselves, 
and known to be so by us ; and, b\ consequence, none at 
all ; it being only God's prerogative to search their hearts, 
and to know the truth of that grace, which himself hath 
been pleased to bestow upon them. But children's right to 
baptism is grounded upon the outward profession of their 
believing parents $ so that as a king may be crowned in his 
cradle, not because he is able to wield the sceptre, or ma- 
nage the affairs of his kingdom* but because he is heir to 
hh father ; so here, children are not therefore baptized, be- 
cause they are able to perform the conditions of the cove- 
nant* which is sealed to them, but. because thev are children 



( ft ) 

to believing parents. And this seems yet to be farther evi- 
dent, from the very nature of seals, which are not adminis- 
tered or annexed to any covenant, because the conditions are 
already performed, but rather that they may be performed: 
and so children are not baptized, because they are already 
true christians, but that they may be so hereafter. 

As for a command for infant-baptism, I believe, that the 
same law that enjoined circumcision to the Jewish enjoins 
baptism likewise to christian children, there being the same 
reason for both. The reason why the Jewish children were 
to be circumcised, was because they were Jewish childrenj 
born of such as professed the true worship of God, and were 
in covenant with him : and there is the same reason, why 
christian children are to be baptized, even because they are 
christian children, born of such as profess the true worship 
of the same God, and are confederates in the same covenant 
with the Jews themselves. And, as there is the same rea- 
son, so likewise the same end for both, viz. that the children 
might be actually admitted into the same covenant with 
their parents, and have it visibly confirmed to them by this 
initiating seal put upon them : so that circumcision and 
baptism are not two distinct seals, but the same seal di- 
versely applied ; the one being but as a type of the other, 
and so to give place to it, whensoever, by the institution of 
Christ, it should be brought into the ohureh of God. And 
therefore, the command for initiating children into the 
church by baptism, remains still in force, though circumci- 
sion, which was the type and shadow of it, be done away. 
Hnd for this reason, I believe, that was there never a com- 
mand in the new testament for infant-baptism, jet, seeing 
there is one for circumcision in the old, and for baptism, as 
coming into the place of it, in the new, I should look upon 
baptism as necessarily to be applied to infants now, as cir- 
cumcision was then. 

But why should it be supposed, that there is no command 
in the new testament for infant-baptism ? There are several 
texts that seem to imply its being practised in the first 
preaching of the gospel, as particularly in the ease oTI/ydia 
and the keeper of the prison. Acts xvi. 15, 33. who had their 
whole families baptized, and we no where find, that children 
were excepted. On the contrary, St. Peter exhorting the 
converted Jews to be baptized, makes use of this argument 
to bring them to it, For the promise, says he, is unto you, 
q,n& to your children, Acts ii. 38* 39. which may as reason- 



( S3 ) 

ably be understood of their infants, as of their adult poste- 
rity. But, besides, it was the express command of Christ 
to his disciples, that they should go, and teach all nations* 
baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy, 
Ghost, Matth. xxvii. 10. The meaning of which words X 
take to be this : go ye, and preach the gospel amongst all 
nations, and endeavour thereby to bring them over to the 
embracing of it ; that leaving all Jewish ceremonies and 
heathenish idolatries, they may profess my name, and be- 
come my disciples, receive the truth, and follow me ; which 
if they do, I charge you to baptize them in the name of the 
Father, Son, and Holy Ghost : for the word matheleusaie 
doth not signify to teach, but to make disciples, denoting the 
same here, that mathetas poiein doth upon the like occasion, 
John iv, l. 

And this is the sense that all the ancient translations agree 
in ; nor, indeed, will the text itself bear any other ; especi- 
ally, not that of teaching; for though the apostles should 
have taught all nations, yet they were not presently to bap- 
tize them, unless they became disciples, and professors of 
the doctrine that they were taught. . A man may be taught 
the doctrine of the gospel, and ^H not believe it; and even 
though lie should believe, yet unless he openly professes his 
faith in it, he ought not presently to be baptized. For, 
without this outward profession, the very possessing of 
Christ cannot entitle a man to this privilege before men, 
though it doth before God ; because we cannot know how 
any one stands affected towards Christ, but only by his out-* 
ward profession of him. It is the inward possession of 
Christ's person that entitles us to the inward spiritual grace : 
but it is the outward profession of his name only, that enti- 
tles us to the outward visible sign in baptism : so that a 
man must, of necessity, be a professed disciple of the gos- 
pel, before he can be admitted into the church of Christ. 
And hence it is, that the words must necessarily be under- 
stood of discipling, or bringing the nations over to the pro- 
fession of the christian religion ; or else, we must suppose, 
what ought not to be granted, that our saviour must com- 
mand many that were visible enemies to his cross, to be re- 
ceived into his church ; for many of the Jews were taught 
and Instructed in the doctrine of the gospel, who, notwith- 
standing, were inveterate enemies unto Christ. They were 
taftght, that he was the Messiah, and saviour of the world* 
* -1 that ivh&soecer believed in him 9 should not perish, bu£ 



( 59 ) 

"have everlasting life ; and they bad all the reason in the 
World to I)** convinced of it : ^et, T hope, there is none will 
say, that the bare knowledge of, or tacit assent unto, these 
things, are a sufficient ground for their reception into the 
church. 

Now, as h was in the Jewish church, when any one be- 
came a proselyte, not only himself, but whatsoever children 
lie afterwards had, were to be circumcised ; so in the church 
of Christ, whensoever any person is brought over into the 
profession of the christian religion, bis seed are all equally 
invested with the outward privileges of it with himself, 
though they he not as yet come to years of discretion, nor 
able, of themselves, to make their profession of that religions 
they are to he received and baptized into. For, so long as 
Children are iu their infancy* they are (as I before observed) 
looked upon as parts of their parents, and are therefore ac- 
counted holy, hy the outward profession which their pa- 
rents, under whom they are comprehended, make of it : a? c! 
in this sense, 1 Cor. viii. 14. the unbelieving husband is said 
to he sanctified by the believing wife, and the unbelieving 
%vfe bij the believing husband, that is man and wife being 
made ope flesh, they are denominated, by the better part, 
holy, and so are their children too. 

And hence it is, that I verily believe, that in the commis- 
sion which our saviour gave to his apostles, to disciple and 
baptize all nations, he meant, that they should preach the 
gospel in all nations, and thereby bring over all persons of 
understanding and discretion to the profession of his name, 
and in them, their children ; and so engraft both root and 
branch into himself, the true vine, by baptizing both parents 
and children in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy 
Ghost. 

The main objection against this is, that infants are not \n 
a capacity either to learn and understand their duty in this 
covenant, or to stipulate and promise for their future per- 
formance of the conditions of it. But this difiVultv is easi* 
ly removed, when 1 consider, that it i&not by virtue of their 
Own faith or knowledge, but that of their parents, that they 
are admitted to this sacrament ; nor is it required, that they 
should stipulate or promise in their own persons, but by 
their godfathers or sponsors, who enter into this engage* 
jnent for them, and oblige them, when they come of age, t$ 
take it upon themselves ; which accordingly they .do. And 
ihh engagement, by proxy, docs as effectually bind them to 



( 60 ) 

the performance of the conditions, as if they were actually 
in a capacity to have stipulated for themselves, or sealed the 
covenant in their own persons. For these spiritual signs or 
seals are not designed to make God's word surer to us, but 
only to make our faith stronger in him ; nor are they of the 
substance of the covenant, hut only for the better confirma- 
tion of it, 

ooo^ooo- t a* 



From the Commentary or Doctor Apam Clarke. 

JWe on Matthew, 3d chapter, 6th verse. 
In what form baptism was originally administered, has 
been deemed a subject worthy of serious dispute. Were the 
people dipped or sprinkled °l for it is certain hapto and bap- 
ii%o mean both. They were all dipped, say some. Can 
any man suppose, that it was possible for John to dip all 
the inhabitants of Jerusalem and Judea, and of all the 
country round about the Jordani Were both men and wo- 
men dipped, for certainly both came to his baptism ? This 
could never have comported either with safety or with de- 
sency. Were they dipped in their clothes V This would have 
endangered their lives, if they had not with them change of 
raiment : and as such a baptism as John's (however admi- 
nistered) was, in several respects, a new thing in Judea, it 
is not at all likely, that the people would come thus provi- 
ded. But suppose these were dipped, which I think it would 
be impossible to prove, does it follow, that in all regions of 
the world, men and women must be dipped, in order to be 
evangelically baptized ? In the eastern countries, bathings 
were frequent, because of the heat of the climate, it being 
there so necessary to cleanliness and health ; but could our 
climate, or a more northerly one, admit of this with safety, 
for at least three fourths of the year ? We may rest assured 
that it could not. And may we not presume, that if John 
had opened his commission in the North of Great Britain, 
for many months of the year, he would have dipped neither 
man nor woman, unless he could have procured a tepid bath? 
Those who are dipped or immersed in water in the name of 
the Holy Trinity, I believe to be evangelically baptized. 
Those who are washed or sprinkled with water in the name 
of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, 1 be? 



( 61 3 

lieve to be equally so : and the repetition of such a baptism, 
I believe to be profane. Others have a right to believe the 
contrary, if they see good. After all, it is the thing sign*- 
iied, and not the mode, which is the essential part of the sa- 
crament. 

Note 011 Mark, vii chapter, 16 verse* 
Then, though little children, they were capable of receiv- 
ing Christ's blessing. If Christ embraced them, why 
should not his church embrace them ? Why not dedicate 
them to God by baptism $ whether that be performed by 
sprinkling, washing, or immersion; for we need not dispute 
about the mode : on this point let every one be fully pcrsua* 
ded in his own mind. I confess it appears to me gross]/ 
heathenish and barbarous, to see parents who profess to be- 
lieve in that Christ who loves children, and among them 
those whose creed does not prevent them from using gpfant 
baptism, depriving their children of an ordinance by which 
no soul can prove that they cannot be profited ; and through 
an unaccountable bigotry or carelessness withhold from 
them the privilege of even a nominal dedication to God \ 
and yet these very persons are ready enough to fly for a mi- 
nister to baptize their child when they suppose it to be at 
the point of death ! It would be no crime to pray, that such 
persons should never have the privilege of hearing my fa- 
ther i or my mother I from the lips of their own child, " 



Concluding Note. 
It is easy to carry things into extremes on the right hand 
and on the left. In the controversy, to which there is a ve 
ry gentle reference in the preceding observations, there has 
been much asperity on all sides. It is high time this were 
ended. To say that water baptism is nothing, because a 
baptism of the Spirit h promised, is not correct. Baptism, 
howsoever administered, is a most important rite in the 
church of Christ. To say that sprinkling or aspersion h 
no gospel baptism, is as incorrect, as to say immersion is 
none. Such assertions are as unchristian as they are un- 
charitable ; and should be carefully avoided, by all thosr. 
who wish to promote the great design of the gospel—- -glory 
to God, and peace and good will among men* Lastly, to 
assert that infant baptism is unscriptural, is as rash and 
reprehensible as any of the rest. Myriads of conscientious 
people choose to dedicate their infants to God, by piiilh 



C ®% ) 

baptism. They are in the eight ! and by acting thus, fel- 
low the general practice both of the Jewish and Christian 
church— a practice, from which it is as needless as it is 
dangerous to depart* 



IJVIS. 



* 



«3 C 



- C <f 



■ ,C < 

■". < 

% 

i C -■ 

' c 
- dc-c 

c or ■ . 



<. 



■ 



r 



c 






'•: . ~~Y:-. 





i 


: 


t ( 



IS 

< c c .<: 

X C $ 

sc < r 



: | " r esc << « 



tmttt. 



ix< I ■ 






:.«&. <c 



06JC:O4r 












Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: Sept. 2005 

PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township, PA 16066 
(724) 779-21 1 1 



c 6£5 - i 



^nr;^ 



'. 


-• 


C. *' 

■'" w c 

<; 


■':'., < 



( C 



«£ i ' 






c 






«<^ 









. C >■-< r 


~ 




. GSC ! •"_ . 


. C ' 


' vv 


C 4 ■ 


£• 


C<i: 


c ■ . <£ C 


C ', . ■■' 


C< 




s- - 1 


/'"< 


CC ; 5 


Jj 


■ '■ '£■' 




'"C 


: ; X 


-\ % 




CvC 


i'~ 




<■■ c " 


■c 


" ,. c "",„- C5 ■■■ <S3 ' 


5 


■ <<: 




C 


<r«c 


\ .■" i 




■c «C - ■ 


v : 


J 


<-,/- 


- 


i < 


c c ■ ■■ " 


• ■ 


" tt 


■ € ■■: 


<- _ 


c C 


r «C c 


■ ... 


" ;; " 


.- c: 






i <: 




c 


i c: . : 






d; C< C 


C 


t 


CT "O ' - : 


i c 





• m< i ! v ^ 

W ' *§i *-'«■& ■ ' 

?";.■> , . e ■ " ■ «r:: 

. - . g 






4;r _ 


rr, 


r 


.: 




^ 


? c_ 


'<$B&. 


i 


«£ 




% c<-*e^. 


C 


<C 




C «5<5£>. 


•-.. 


c 






c 








*'. 


: 


' ^■<&tg§ 




s . 


r 


'■ 




m 















«§<CL 



